patrick.net

Yes. In the quantum eraser experiment, the measurement and choice is delayed until after the wave function HAS to have already collapsed. It makes it impossible to ignore the likelihood that the wave function is literally nothing until it has to be - and that reality is dependent on conscious observation.

In my opinion, the simplest possible conclusion is that the universe is a mathematical and procedural simulation, but one where our collective consciousness precedes the chemistry.

People have been refusing to see the light on this for decades. They take the quantum physics course and see the evidence, but refuse to see the ramifications. They just tell themselves that "we can't track the path of the photon without shining a light on it - therefore we change the reaction by observing it, which causes the wave function to collapse. There's no mystery, no conscious connection. By observing it, we change it...blah blah."

But that has always been a cop-out. The Delayed choice quantum eraser puts the "measurement" of the photon AFTER the wavefunction already has passed through the slits. It proves that the existence of the photon is dependent on conscious observation and not on the mechanics of measurement.

"If the path is known...we know the result...time and space be damned"

And more amazing still is that quantum effects are becoming macroscopic. Rather than just entangling photons, we are entangling entire protein molecules of greater than 19 million ATOMS.

It absolutely throws causation out the window. We are probably all rats in a maze, and we probably invented the maze ourselves.

If I were going to exist consciously aware forever, I would want to periodically forget all of that. Vacations from eternity would be critical to my not going truly insane.

deepcgi says

reality is dependent on conscious observation

As the videos already addressed, consciousness has nothing to do with the observer effect. It does not make a difference if the results are seen by a human or merely by an inanimate detector. The desire of some humans to want to believe that will matters and there is some spiritual connection to the universe is the foolish reason those people project conscious decision making onto the non-sentient universe.

Make no mistake. God can kiss my butt. Spiritual implications be damned. Metaphysical new age b.s. be damned as well. And I dont even like granola.

It doesn't depend on "individual" conscious observation. That is why I used the word "collective". An individual scientist or houseplant is not collective. All together we are.

In other words, Einstein was right in that the moon is there even when he's not looking at it. That is because the chain of collective observations requires it to be there all the time. But not everything is like the moon. That is what makes our massive world video games possible. They are only mathematical functions of infinite possibilities, where we draw the graphics only where they need to be drawn. But it is a multiplayer game, and so while none of the players is looking at a certain object, many of its properties are nevertheless collapsed and must be tracked and maintained.

However, the experiments do tell us that once the observation can be consciously verified (in that destruction of observed data has been shown to yield the same results as a lack of observation). It doesn't surprise me he left that part out - it is the remaining thread upon which modern causality hangs.

Digital Physics makes much more simplistic sense than the "many worlds" hypothesis. Why assume that every possible Minecraft world that is possible actually exists somewhere? Why not just say that the mathematical procedures to create every possible minecraft world exists somewhere, and that only the ones forced to exist, actually do?

Observation is exploration and creation, but it is tempered by a set of rules which had to preexist.

I know it hints at intelligent design (maybe). It is inevitable that we will simulate universes in very much the same way - at some point in the future. When we do, these facts will be true for the inhabitants of those simulated universes whether they believe it or not.

What are the odds that we will be the first to have simulated?

OK, so instead of peek-a-boo, you believe in The Consensus. That's false as well.

So all that is keeping you from flying is that other people don't believe you can.

@deepcgi Your idea fits quite well with the first line of the Dhammapada, the basic Buddhist text:

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts."

It's not consensus either. The wave function can't be a taco. There are a limited number of things it could be. But the very term "wave function" shows that they are coming to the same conclusion. "The particle goes through both slits and it goes through neither". Until the function is collapsed. But Mathematics isn't reality. Probabilities aren't reality, either. But the function isn't collapsed unless it's limited number of variables is known. Once they are "known" (observed), then the collapse happened - maybe a billion years ago, but it happened.

If you don't like the Simulation Hypothesis you may prefer the Digital Physics Hypothesis. Both are new relative to the Quantum Eraser Experiment. Here is an argument on the subject:

http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/02/10/digital-physics-vs-the-simulation-argument/

The Quantum Eraser experiment clever and interesting because it elegantly demonstrates that something unexpected happens consistently under two different circumstances. However, it does not show the underlying mechanism that is causing the stripe vs bullet pattern when the path information is erased. In fact, the experiment gives no clues as to the underlying mechanism.

I do not believe that information travels backwards in time and retroactively changes reality. It is more likely that the information travels forward in time and that the placement of the photons on the sheet affects their entangled pairs causing them to become more likely to go through detector C or D. Interestingly, the strip pattern doesn't actually occur on the sheet even when the other photons go through C or D. Instead, what is actually happening is that the C and D alternatives partition the bullet pattern on the sheet into two offset stripe patterns. So which is the cause: the act of going through slot A or B or the act of being detected by C or D?

I am more incline to believe that the event occurring later is the effect and that there is a physical mechanism by which the entailment and the wave functions operate. I'm in the De Broglie Bohm Pilot Wave Theory or Bohmian Mechanics camp.

I understand that point of view. I believe those theories continue to argue that mathematics and probability are the same as reality. I disagree.

It's like discovering a mysterious large scale behavior of matter and energy. I hereby assign all the junk I don't understand about this phenomenon - the variable "X". Scientists are clever. They hate having to say "we don't know". Then if you infer that they do NOT in fact know, they retort with, "Oh yes we do! We know exactly what it is. It is X."

That is essentially all that the Wave Function is. It is a mathematical probability used to describe the effect.

If I created a new version of Minecraft in which all of the little cube men were self aware and became clever scientists, they would one day discover a variety of scientific and mathematical but unseeable Functions and Probabilities that have predictable but not entirely knowable properties. They may even call one of them the Wave Function. They would be right that it is purely mathematical, but it isn't a universal law of physics which exists consistently in their universe. It's just a JAVA script containing a mathematical function which exists in ours.

I believe that the gigantic leap of faith is not being made by those in the Simulation camp, but by those who believe consciousness and self awareness arise naturally from chemical reactions. I don't think we are likely to tinker together self-aware Minecraft men. We are much more likely to first tinker together an alternate universe which we can immerse ourselves in. It would be an excellent inter-dimensional time machine. I would add that it is inevitable that we will do it, and that it is astronomically unlikely that we would be the first to do so.

The Ptolemy Model of an Earth-centric solar system works. If the criteria for correctness is getting the right answer, then the Ptolemy Model is correct, as correct as the Copernicus Model. Both are logically consistent, predict the exact behavior observed, and are mathematically valid. Both systems work and they work equally well as far as predicting observed behavior. In fact, one can state that the Ptolemy Model is nothing more than a mathematical transformation of the Copernicus Model and vice versa. The two models do not contradict each other.

However, the Copernicus Model is considered superior because it offers an explanation as to why the planets move the way they do whereas the Ptolemy Model does not. The Copernicus Model is also the natural conclusion given the Universal Law of Gravity. You can derived the Copernicus Model directly from that law. Having an underlying physical mechanism for the Copernicus Model in contrast to choosing an arbitrary reference point in the Ptolemy model gives the former more explanatory power, and explaining how the universe works, not just what it does but how, is the ultimate the goal of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation has the same failing as the Ptolemy Model.

More Pilot Wave Theory goodness.

www.RlXdsyctD50

We had already discussed the delayed choice issue here.
/1248840/2014-09-05-wheeler-s-delayed-choice-experiment-there-is-no-tree

Dan8267 says

I do not believe that information travels backwards in time and retroactively changes reality. It is more likely that the information travels forward in time and that the placement of the photons on the sheet affects their entangled pairs causing them to become more likely to go through detector C or D. Interestingly, the strip pattern doesn't actually occur on the sheet even when the other photons go through C or D. Instead, what is actually happening is that the C and D alternatives partition the bullet pattern on the sheet into two offset stripe patterns. So which is the cause: the act of going through slot A or B or the act of being detected by C or D?

I don't like the idea that observation creates reality either. Realism must be preserved.
The problem here is not what causes the particle to go through C or D. The problem is that whether the experimenter directs the particle in A/B or C/D changes the interference/no interference status, and furthermore does so AFTER the interference would logically have happened.
A more direct demonstration of this would be the Wheeler delayed choice experiment that was described in my previous post. It directly shows that observation after facts influence whether there was interference or not.
The many worlds interpretation manages to maintain realism in this case. The Pilot Wave may also do it.

In any case this is a fascinating experience, and the fact that we don't know how to interpret this, shows that physicists are not making enough efforts to explore all possible aspects of this. This is where we see the nature of reality. Not in string theory or hunting particles with mega particle smashers.