It from bit...

[Alaskan]

 

[Alaskan]

https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

 

[H2Oxide]

While certainly interesting, the video you linked makes the fatal assumption that the "observer" must be conscious to influence the outcome of the double slit experiment.

This is simply not the case, though it does seem to be an increasingly common mistake, likely due to the intrinsic "weirdness" of quantum mechanics. To be "observed" a particle need only to have its wave function collapsed, which does not require a conscious "observer." While consciousness is certainly required to be able to comprehend it, it is not required to change or influence quantum states.

Whether or not we are living in a simulation is not something that can be proven or disproven without outside influence (assuming we do in fact live in a simulation). You can't say with 100% certainty that a given phenomenon isn't just the result of the fundamental properties of the universe, even if no one is even able to understand those properties.

 

[Alaskan]

You are correct, some individuals continue to think the "observer" effect of collapsing the possibilities is through conscious interaction or through observation, but that isn't necessarily how I understand the situation. Any kind of interaction from other particles can also collapse the possibilities to produce a particle. However, some will argue against it. For us as human beings who are conscious entities, I suspect the experiments can only result in proving consciousness has effect upon the experiment, that we cannot have any other result because we are conscious beings and that is what happens when we get involved due to being part of the whole, because of this we affect things, from that, this shows our reality is not subjective.

I'm continuing to research this information, trying to understand the nature of our reality in regards to the effect observation has to quantum scale physics, as well as the larger higher scale reality we exist in, slowly pulling more and more understanding together, too slow though. I have a personal liking of the Copenhagen interpretation because it isn't a materialist viewpoint which I believe in, but at the same time I don't think that interpretation has the whole of it either.

The second link I posted also agrees with your statement, that consciousness isn't solely required for the field of possibilities to collapse into a realized state, or for the wave to have particle-like behavior; becoming one, apparently, just through the act or process of interaction. But that is the crux of observation anyway, whether automated or consciously registered, both are observations, whether registration or recognition. Perhaps those two words don't fit well though, re-, as a reconstruction or representation, they imply that such are not what also caused the change or the effect when at quantum, observation is a part of the process which causes the effect.

I'm going to use a dangerous word, because of the religious implications which I would like to avoid, but what if "God" (or, "something", if you don't like that word) is observing everything which happens, but not before it happens? In other words, anything can happen, but once the probability of some kind of occurrence reaches a high enough level to happen, only then it is fully observed. Could this be how it works? If you read or watch some of Thomas Campbell's stuff on youtube, he posits that nothing exists until it is observed, the same way when we are playing a video game, nothing is rendered until we get into that part of the game... I'm sure I'm sounding a bit like Forrest Gump with some of this, stupid is as stupid does.... but there is also a lot of wisdom in that stupid statement too.

Please forgive the use of the G word, I don't have a better (or perhaps in the minds of some; worse) word for what I am trying to say, so I used it. Although I don't like much of the religious baggage which comes along with it.

Edit: More....



edit: more

 

[Alaskan]

Can coherent domains exist?