₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
The Question of Reality

Now the question is just how "real" our reality is. At this juncture I would like to correct your notion of illusion. You should note that even a hallucination has some reality to the extent that it is an experience. Even a video game has some reality to the extent that it is experienced. Thus it seems to me that when you place the test as asking one to jump off a building and see the result, you are missing the point. That we are having an experience in this world of some kind or the other is beyond cavil, the question is just how substantial in reality that experience is. For me, it is clear that we cannot proceed without establishing what we mean by something that is properly real.

The definition I work with is something that exists in substance by itself as opposed to something which is only put on: as opposed to a set of images, feeling or sounds which are cast before the experiencer merely to experience and which can be removed in the same way as one may wake from a dream, or one may remove a VR Headset, or one may come out of a video game or a movie or the like. It is my contention that this life is similar to a contrived set of experiences cast before us but lacking in the substantiality of its own base realness.

You have to ask yourself, for the day is surely coming, when Virtual Reality technology will be so advanced as to be completely indistinguishable from our reality - you have to ask yourself if such VR experiences will thus be "real." You see, in such VR experiences there will still be cause and effect just as jumping from a building and falling down, and you could even be made to feel pain therein.

I define reality as the shared space which contains all our shared experiences and all the objects of those experiences. It will also include objects which we will eventually experience even though we are currently not experiencing them yet. You will note that by definition this does not escape solipsism and that is because I don't even give it any credence because to me there is no way to prove we AREN'T a brain in a vat. However, within the bounds of our experience this foundational definition suffices to exclude things that are not real. It also means you will have to prove that we ARE brains in a vat or any such solipsistic framework.

It also highlights the difference between reality and VIRTUAL reality. The key difference being that shared space only exists as a construct that is distinct from the space in which our "real" shared experiences take place. Another being that VR can never reach the fidelity of the "real" space because of constrains that we will further explore when we talk about simulation.

LordReed:
I define reality as the shared space which contains all our shared experiences and all the objects of those experiences. It will also include objects which we will eventually experience even though we are currently not experiencing them yet. You will note that by definition this does not escape solipsism and that is because I don't even give it any credence because to me there is no way to prove we AREN'T a brain in a vat. However, within the bounds of our experience this foundational definition suffices to exclude things that are not real. It also means you will have to prove that we ARE brains in a vat or any such solipsistic framework.

It also highlights the difference between reality and VIRTUAL reality. The key difference being that shared space only exists as a construct that is distinct from the space in which our "real" shared experiences take place. Another being that VR can never reach the fidelity of the "real" space because of constrains that we will further explore when we talk about simulation.

+
Noted. Lets move on to your response to the other paragraphs one at a time. Lets try the double slit experiment.

DeepSight:
The Double Slit Experiment

This here is where I bring in the double slit experiment. I was shocked to my bone that you claimed it had nothing to do with consciousness. The experiment is well known to have unveiled the way outcomes change based on whether there is conscious observation or not. Your arguments about instruments are neither here nor there for always the instruments were only aids for observation by conscious beings. And it remains puzzling till this day how that "observer effect" works out in quantum physics. However it strongly suggests that our reality is only rendered before us upon observation and thus that it is not intrinsically there - thereby destroying your claim on object permanence. And yes sir, I say this as an adult and not a child and the scientists who discovered all these were not children either.

The object permanence you observe is obviously a built in factor of the program, just as if you store something somewhere in a video game, you will return to meet it there when you log in. This does not mean that the thing was anywhere there or anywhere in fact while you were logged out. It was not.

I will post separately on the double slit experiment in order to nail the point that conscious observation was central to outcomes and this alone hammers home the point that this reality is an artificial construct.

I think our disagreement can be resolved by you linking a scientific paper stating that the Double Slit Experiment had its results due to human consciousness. I'll wait.

LordReed:
I think our disagreement can be resolved by you linking a scientific paper stating that the Double Slit Experiment had its results due to human consciousness. I'll wait.

+
Before dropping a first link (and I may drop others) I want you to appreciate two elementary things which it does not seem to me that you appreciate. I dont know if you followed the progress of the experiment or you just read somewhere some conclusions about it. But a long time ago I have watched a documentary which showed its development step by step and in that documentary it is clear that conscious observation was seen to interfere with outcomes. The scientists then went so far as to step away from the experiment and replace direct observation with detectors and still the same results occurred. The point being that so long as there was a conscious being attempting to observe, either directly or indirectly (through detectors) the outcome was affected. This is why I think that your pointing to detectors is not only irrelevant but shows that perhaps you dont know how they arrived at detectors in the first place. It was in a bid to try to see if the outcomes would be different after direct observation had already altered outcomes.

The second point you miss is elementary. Conscious observation could be direct or indirect. For example, I can stand physically present to watch an event. That's direct. I can deploy CCTV t record it. That's indirect. Neither case changes the factor of a conscious being observing. This is why I find the distinction you are attempting to make tiresome and irrelevant.

Now, please have a look here -

"A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern's double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4.36, p=6 x 10(-6)).

Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0.43, p=0.67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. (C) 2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157]"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258707222_Consciousness_and_the_double-slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments

There is nothing to conclude from this but the fact that conscious observation has an effect on outcomes in our reality and this more than strongly shows that your much touted "object permanence" has no root in science and that the likelihood that we live in a programmed simulation directed by consciousness is far greater.

DeepSight:
+
Before dropping a first link (and I may drop others) I want you to appreciate two elementary things which it does not seem to me that you appreciate. I dont know if you followed the progress of the experiment or you just read somewhere some conclusions about it. But a long time ago I have watched a documentary which showed its development step by step and in that documentary it is clear that conscious observation was seen to interfere with outcomes. The scientists then went so far as to step away from the experiment and replace direct observation with detectors and still the same results occurred. The point being that so long as there was a conscious being attempting to observe, either directly or indirectly (through detectors) the outcome was affected. This is why I think that your pointing to detectors is not only irrelevant but shows that perhaps you dont know how they arrived at detectors in the first place. It was in a bid to try to see if the outcomes would be different after direct observation had already altered outcomes.

The second point you miss is elementary. Conscious observation could be direct or indirect. For example, I can stand physically present to watch an event. That's direct. I can deploy CCTV t record it. That's indirect. Neither case changes the factor of a conscious being observing. This is why I find the distinction you are attempting to make tiresome and irrelevant.

Now, please have a look here -

"A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern's double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4.36, p=6 x 10(-6)).

Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0.43, p=0.67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. (C) 2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157]"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258707222_Consciousness_and_the_double-slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments

There is nothing to conclude from this but the fact that conscious observation has an effect on outcomes in our reality and this more than strongly shows that your much touted "object permanence" has no root in science and that the likelihood that we live in a programmed simulation directed by consciousness is far greater.

Read this:

A two year long experimental dataset in which authors of [1] claim to find evidence of mind-matter interaction is independently re-analyzed. In this experiment, participants are asked to periodically shift their attention towards or away from a double-slit optical apparatus. Shifts in fringe visibility of the interference pattern are monitored and tested against the common sense null hypothesis that such shifts should not correlate with the participant’s attention state. We i/ show that the original statistical test used in [1] contains an erroneous trimming procedure leading to uncontrolled false positives and underestimated p-values, ii/ propose a deeper analysis of the dataset, identifying several preprocessing parameters and carefully assessing the results’ robustness regarding the choice of these parameters. We observe, as in [1], shifts in fringe visibility in the direction expected by the mind-matter interaction hypothesis. However, these shifts are not deemed significant (p > 0.05). Our re-analysis concludes that this particular dataset does not contain evidence of mind-matter interaction.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6366771/

LordReed:
Read this:

A two year long experimental dataset in which authors of [1] claim to find evidence of mind-matter interaction is independently re-analyzed. In this experiment, participants are asked to periodically shift their attention towards or away from a double-slit optical apparatus. Shifts in fringe visibility of the interference pattern are monitored and tested against the common sense null hypothesis that such shifts should not correlate with the participant’s attention state. We i/ show that the original statistical test used in [1] contains an erroneous trimming procedure leading to uncontrolled false positives and underestimated p-values, ii/ propose a deeper analysis of the dataset, identifying several preprocessing parameters and carefully assessing the results’ robustness regarding the choice of these parameters. We observe, as in [1], shifts in fringe visibility in the direction expected by the mind-matter interaction hypothesis. However, these shifts are not deemed significant (p > 0.05). Our re-analysis concludes that this particular dataset does not contain evidence of mind-matter interaction.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6366771/

+
Even this admits some effect on outcomes in the bold even if it argues they are minor. So you can't use this as a rebuttal. You need a stronger rebuttal.

DeepSight:
+
Even this admits some effect on outcomes in the bold even if it argues they are minor. So you can't use this as a rebuttal. You need a stronger rebuttal.

My argument is the collapse of the interference pattern was not affected by consciousness and that is what this shows. The fringe visibility the paper notes is well within error rates or else it would have been significant.

LordReed:
My argument is the collapse of the interference pattern was not affected by consciousness and that is what this shows. The fringe visibility the paper notes is well within error rates or else it would have been significant.

+
But your paper does not successfully debunk the research paper I provided which you asked me to. Frankly I didn't even need to because the results of the experiment are well known and as such you need something far stronger than that paper to properly rebut it. I could present you many other papers if you insist, but I am sure the point is proven.

DeepSight:
+
But your paper does not successfully debunk the research paper I provided which you asked me to. Frankly I didn't even need to because the results of the experiment are well known and as such you need something far stronger than that paper to properly rebut it. I could present you many other papers if you insist, but I am sure the point is proven.

I don't even need it to since yours doesn't even claim the wave function is collapsed by consciousness.

LordReed:
I don't even need it to since yours doesn't even claim the wave function is collapsed by consciousness.

+
Excuse me?

Please this is the sort of thing that is worrisome. I have said at all times that the outcomes are affected by consciousness, this has been my statement. In light of that please go to my post again and read the bits I put in bold red and underlined.

I certainly hope that will do as opposed to introducing a specific requirement on what consciousness must do to the wave function.

Here we go. But first, I want the clarify something very important because I think I have been misunderstood.

I'm not scoffing or dismissing the idea that the world may be more than what we think it is. I'm familiar with the concept. I've encountered it in various traditions I've been part of, and through reading materials produced by great teachers on the topic . So I know what it's all about and can easily separate the wheat from the chaff anytime anyone anywhere starts to talk about it

However, my issue with Kayouzka wasn't that he raised the topic, but that he presented it in a way that guaranteed misunderstanding. When I decided to join Lordreed in demanding he jump or walk through a wall, it was to highlight that his descriptions pointed to something he likely didn't intend, that the world is a collective hallucination where physical laws don't apply.

Most people understand an "illusion" to mean something that is not there, not real, hallucination, "you can't hold it or touch it". If you try any of those things, you touch nothing. When you ignore this common understanding and openly declare, "the world is an illusion" not real, you're either taking it for granted that others will instinctively grasp what you mean by that term, or simply don't care because to you they are not "awake" and can only understand when they "wake up. That's not the behaviour of someone who wants to teach something they believe others can benefit from. It's intellectual arrogance, a great put off that will cause your audience to disregard you

But as the conversation progressed in the other thread, I realised the problem goes even deeper. He wasn't just unclear, he continued to conflate two very different things, and from the evidence in this thread you just created, you're also guilty of the same conflation. I'm referring to the spiritual understanding of the world as "illusion" (Maya, a projection, a shadow) and the modern conspiracy theory known as "simulation theory". They are not the same or related in any way. No authentic esoteric tradition teaches that we live in a computer prigram created by some invisible beings. The idea is a New Age invention that has only gained traction because its proponents falsely claim if finds scientific support.

I reject simulation theory completely and I ask you to do the same for a reason I will explain later.

[b] Now, to the meat of the thing. I will begin with your definition of what is "Real". You define it as something that "exists" in substance by itself as opposed to something which is only put on: as opposed to a set of images, feelings or sounds cast before the experiencer "

But this definition is not only vague and unhelpful, it is also a trick. You tell us what "real" is not, it's not images, not feelings, not sounds, not what's "put on". But you never tell us what it is. What is this "substance" that makes "real" real?. What'is it made of? How would we recognise it?

You set up a definition where, "Real" has "substance" , while this world lacks"substance"

Since you never define "substance" positively, you can easily claim this world lacks it without having ever having to prove what "it" is. The claim is an unfalsifiable claim. You can't be proven wrong because you haven't told anyone what to look for[/b]

The material world has its own kind of substance, matter, energy, quantum fields, call it what you will. It's measurable, consistent, and affects us. If you say this is not substance, then please tell what is it?

To be continued tomorrow. The next is the cave allegory. Does it prove simulation or illusion?

Cc Deepsght, Lordreed

DeepSight:
+
Excuse me?

Please this is the sort of thing that is worrisome. I have said at all times that the outcomes are affected by consciousness, this has been my statement. In light of that please go to my post again and read the bits I put in bold red and underlined.

I certainly hope that will do as opposed to introducing a specific requirement on what consciousness must do to the wave function.

We might be talking past each other. I am focused on the collapse of the wave function as you can see with this post from the other thread.

LordReed:
The observation is not by conscious humans directly. They use detectors which collapse the wave nature of the electrons. It has nothing to do with consciousness. The reason the observation causes it is because the electrons receive energy from the detector not because there is a human being looking at it.

The paper you linked DOES NOT show that the wave function is collapsed by conscious observation.

LordReed:
We might be talking past each other. I am focused on the collapse of the wave function as you can see with this post from the other thread.


The paper you linked DOES NOT show that the wave function is collapsed by conscious observation.

+
Are you telling me that even when it is shown that conscious observation affects outcomes, if it is not shown to affect the collapse of the wave function specifically then you will insist that conscious observation does not affect outcomes in the experiment?

DeepSight:
+
Are you telling me that even when it is shown that conscious observation affects outcomes, if it is not shown to affect the collapse of the wave function specifically then you will insist that conscious observation does not affect outcomes in the experiment?

I don't know what else to tell you. My position is it does not cause the wave function collapse. Your paper says it causes something else which a counter paper says it doesn't. My initial position was not countered.

LordReed:
I don't know what else to tell you. My position is it does not cause the wave function collapse. Your paper says it causes something else which a counter paper says it doesn't. My initial position was not countered.

+
It is possible this conversation has failed if you insist this way.
Because I cant imagine how anyone can insist on the bold when it is obvious that the issue is consciousness affecting outcomes. To insist on a particular outcome is beyond me and I dont think I have the intellectual capacity to address myself to such a strange position.

DeepSight:
+
It is possible this conversation has failed if you insist this way.
Because I cant imagine how anyone can insist on the bold when it is obvious that the issue is consciousness affecting outcomes. To insist on a particular outcome is beyond me and I dont think I have the intellectual capacity to address myself to such a strange position.

I dunno what you mean by insist on a particular outcome. The wave function collapse is one of the things the experiment is famous for.

LordReed:
I dunno what you mean by insist on a particular outcome. The wave function collapse is one of the things the experiment is famous for.

+
I don't even mind a discussion where we dig into that because I can show you the details of that paper by paper.

What frightens me is the principle you are deploying.

If we say that consciousness affects outcomes, the point should be ceded once any outcomes are provably affected.

To say no, the point will only be satisfied if outcomes are affected in a specific manner is scary.

If you accede that any effect on outcomes goes to the point, that would be fair enough. But the principle behind saying only one kind of effect suffices is something I can't cope with.

Having said that, here is a study (in medicine this time) with the following conclusion:

. . . . we have shown that the presence of the subject in a state of high concentrated attention had an influence on wave-particle duality of the electromagnetic wave, attenuating visibility (wave properties) significantly and consequently increases corpuscularity, except for the relax group, in all groups compared to control. This fact means that the laser wave function collapsed in the interactive field of focused attention
---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987719307352

LordReed,

Here is a very thorough and exhaustive write up. It is very detailed so you may have to distill carefully. But I distill the following for you from it -


To be or not to be

The decision to travel as a wave or as a particle has to be made at the first beam splitter, however, this decision depends on the last beam splitter being there – particle – or not being there – wave.

The outcome of the Australian experiment is that the behavior of the atom – interference or not – is always in line the ‘presence’ of the last beam splitter. See figure below. The red curve shows the hits when the last beam splitter was ‘present’. The hit rate shown by the red curve depends on an extra added phase shift. This is clearly unquestionably the case. The blue line shows the hit rate when the last beam splitter was not ‘present’. An extra added phase shift – Δφ – has clearly no influence on the hit rate, both detectors are hit evenly. There is no interference.

How do we explain this outcome? We have these options:

1. The atom knows the status of the last beam splitter in the near future and adapts its behavior on that knowledge.

2. The atom changes its behavior backwards in time depending on the presence of the last beam splitter.

3. The atom, its wave or particle behavior and its detection become manifest at the moment of detection. It does not exist as a particle before measurement but only as a possibility wave.

The last option is – although contrary to our impression of a world of permanent objects – the least unbelievable in my opinion.

However, if this was just one single stand-alone experiment, we could perhaps still ignore it despite the the scientific and academic status of the experimenters. Luckily, there are other experiments confirming the above results. When you follow the guided tour you will come across them.

You can find the above here -

https://quantumphysics-consciousness.eu/index.php/en/a-delayed-choice-mach-zehnder-experiment/

But the entire article starts here -

https://quantumphysics-consciousness.eu/index.php/en/quantum-physics-consciousness-and-information-the-double-slit-experiment/

Follow the links at the bottom of each page to read through.

The full paper of the six experiments I originally cited.

www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Consciousness-and-the-double-slit-interference-pattern-Six-experiments.pdf

The summary is -

.
Publications
Consciousness and the Double-Slit Interference Pattern
June 1, 2012
Arnaud Delorme, PhD, Dean Radin, PhD
Six Experiments
Radin, D., Michel, L., Galdamez, K., Wendland, P., Rickenbach, R., Delorme, A. (2012) Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays: June 2012, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 157-171.

Abstract
A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4:36, p=6·10-6 ). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.

See also -

https://www.academia.edu/5281943/Consciousness_and_the_double_slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments

DeepSight:
+
I don't even mind a discussion where we dig into that because I can show you the details of that paper by paper.

What frightens me is the principle you are deploying.

If we say that consciousness affects outcomes, the point should be ceded once any outcomes are provably affected.

To say no, the point will only be satisfied if outcomes are affected in a specific manner is scary.

If you accede that any effect on outcomes goes to the point, that would be fair enough. But the principle behind saying only one kind of effect suffices is something I can't cope with.

Having said that, here is a study (in medicine this time) with the following conclusion:

. . . . we have shown that the presence of the subject in a state of high concentrated attention had an influence on wave-particle duality of the electromagnetic wave, attenuating visibility (wave properties) significantly and consequently increases corpuscularity, except for the relax group, in all groups compared to control. This fact means that the laser wave function collapsed in the interactive field of focused attention
---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987719307352

I thoroughly disagree. The wave function collapse ONLY occurs when a detector is introduced. You CANNOT cause wave function collapse by consciousness or else we would never have seen the interference pattern in the first place.

Yes again, LordReed, here is another study satisfying your request for a wave function collapse triggered by conscious observation -

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37714569/

Summary -

Abstract

The well-known, quantum physics "double-slit" experiment was the first demonstration of wave-particle duality of light-photons naturally behave like waves, but once they are registered by a conscious observer they switch to behaving like particles. In recent years, a new avenue of research has reported a psychophysical interaction occurring when focused attention was employed in the double-slit experiment. In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference. Contrary to the common belief that physical events have a unidirectional, first-order causal effect on cognition, these studies suggest that mental activities are capable of influencing physical systems.

LordReed:
I thoroughly disagree. The wave function collapse ONLY occurs when a detector is introduced. You CANNOT cause wave function collapse by consciousness or else we would never have seen the interference pattern in the first place.

+
Support your disagreement with papers.

I am digging up papers to satisfy you. See above posts.

DeepSight:
+
Support your disagreement with papers.

I am digging up papers to satisfy you. See above posts.

You like are someone telling me to provide evidence the teapot floating in orbit around Jupiter DOESN'T exist because I said no teapots were ever launched into orbit around Jupiter. That is not a logical step for me to take.

DeepSight:
Yes again, LordReed, here is another study satisfying your request for a wave function collapse triggered by conscious observation -

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37714569/

Summary -

Abstract

The well-known, quantum physics "double-slit" experiment was the first demonstration of wave-particle duality of light-photons naturally behave like waves, but once they are registered by a conscious observer they switch to behaving like particles. In recent years, a new avenue of research has reported a psychophysical interaction occurring when focused attention was employed in the double-slit experiment. In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference. Contrary to the common belief that physical events have a unidirectional, first-order causal effect on cognition, these studies suggest that mental activities are capable of influencing physical systems.

This paper is just a review of that 1st paper you presented, it doesn't show an independent performance of the experiment.

LordReed:
You like are someone telling me to provide evidence the teapot floating in orbit around Jupiter DOESN'T exist because I said no teapots were ever launched into orbit around Jupiter. That is not a logical step for me to take.

+
I dont understand. You insisted on showing that conscious observation collapses the wave function. I have now produced that. See my last post. So what are you on about now?

LordReed:
This paper is just a review of that 1st paper you presented, it doesn't show an independent performance of the experiment.

+
Even if that is the case, you claimed that what I presented did not show wave function collapse whereas it says -

"In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference."

DeepSight:
+
I dont understand. You insisted on showing that conscious observation collapses the wave function. I have now produced that. See my last post. So what are you on about now?

No, you didn't show the wave function collapse. The paper you cited shows variance in INTENSITY of the interference pattern. The interference pattern was still on. If the wave function collapses the interference pattern ceases.

LordReed:
No, you didn't show the wave function collapse. The paper you cited shows variance in INTENSITY of the interference pattern. The interference pattern was still on. If the wave function collapses the interference pattern ceases.

+
-------------->

DeepSight:
+
Even if that is the case, you claimed that what I presented did not show wave function collapse whereas it says -

"In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference."

+
Looking at the underlined above it seems to me you are grasping at straws.

And oh, a variation in intensity is an effect on outcome.

DeepSight:
+
Even if that is the case, you claimed that what I presented did not show wave function collapse whereas it says -

"In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference."

If the wave function collapses the interference pattern ceases, that is what the Double Slit experiment shows. It doesn't happen here.

On Plato's cave allegory, you claimed the shadows came from "beings outside". of it. But this is not what Plato wrote.

Let me quote the actual text from Republic Book V11:

"Behold human beings living in an underground den.... Like ourselves, I said, they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave"

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

The original text says the fire is inside the cave. The objects, the prisoners, the shadows, exists within the same cave. The outside only appears when the prisoners escapes.

What you did was to move the shadow-casters outside to make the story fit your simulation or reflection narrative. But that's not what Plato intended. As scholars have explained, (I researched this to be sure) the cave symbolises the "world of sight", our physical reality. The shadows aren't "projections or reflections from another dimension". They are ordinary appearances we mistake for all of reality.

The cave represents the world of sensory experience, not a "simulation" of another world. It is the only world they have ever known. The prisoners aren't hallucinating. The shadows they see are real shadows of real objects in the sane cave, but behind.

Plato himself makes this very clear right after the allegory, he writes:

"This entire allegory you may now append to the previous arguments; the prison--house is the world of sight...... the journey upward is the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world". (Republic: 517b)

So why did you change it? Because of this, I researched the other things you cited, and discovered the same pattern of repurposing what a scientist has said ,or findings from an experiment to fit your simulation narrative. The continuation will highlight them. Later

Cc Deepsght, Lordreed

DeepSight:
+
-------------->

+
Looking at the underlined above it seems to me you are grasping at straws.

And oh, a variation in intensity is an effect on outcome.

I didn't sy it wasn't. I maintain that the wave function DOESN'T collapse. Change in intensity is not that same as the wave function collapse. There are several ways of changing the interference intensity so it definitely not the same as the wave function collapse.

LordReed:
If the wave function collapses the interference pattern ceases, that is what the Double Slit experiment shows. It doesn't happen here.

+
But you must perforce agree that there is an effect once you say there is a variation in intensity.