/sci/ - Science & Math

wait.. .what?

Are you fucking kidding me?

IQ fundie was right?

>>4654415
I'm always right.

OH BOY

HERE WE GO

Is there a paper published on this?

I call bullshit otherwise.

This is old.

They still have yet to find anything significant.

What will peak oil do to the wave function?

Will we get peak wave function and the panda sun will collide with Jacob Barnett producing a signal 99.999..% as strong as Planck energy?

Please respond.

>>4654436
>Most of the variances expressed for the 250 events are fairly small, however, the last event, Obama getting the Democratic nomination, shows a 2.172 variation.

Prove qualia wrong

I wonder what kind of variation peak oil will produce

>>4654470
I... I can't

I never saw this before, can someone explain what it means?

>>4654497
It proves Dualism correct.

When you do not observe an object, it is in a state of suspended animation, and can only be described by a wave function in a superposition of possible states the object can be in.

When a conscious, human observer looks at the object, or observes it in some other way, it forces the wave function into a particular state. This is because we are being simulated, and consciousness/qualia are outside of the simulation.

Welcome to sims

>>4654505
Fuck you, stupid piece of shit. Where is the proof of this pseudoscientific bullshit?

What do you guys think of the Orch-OR model for quantum consciousness?

>>4654470
And what about the really horrendous things that happen and nothing is seen. Everyone mentions 9/11 but what about the dozens of other disasters where many more have died.
People see what they want to in this nothing more. To suggest that a few occurrences supports a conclusion like this is utter crap.

why would the RNG become structured when human feelings are synchronized.

>>4654527

Decoherence would occur too rapidly for that model to work.

>>4654520
If you read the OP, you would see.

When conscious thoughts are shared among all individuals, changes in physical laws occur.

These are detected on quantum random number generators, which rely on them.

IQ fundie makes me favorite threads <3

>>4654533
Because consciousness alters physical laws by wave function collapse.

So if consciousness is synchronized, more of the universal wave function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction)) is reduced and randomness deteriorates

>>4654551
Yeah but we're like... 0.1x10^27% give or take a few octillion sig figs of the universe's possible "consciousness".
You're telling me that somehow CERN can get the speed of a neutrino wrong because of a loose wire, yet this thing is perfectly accurate to that precision?

So if this Dualism shit is legit what happens when I die?

>>4654555
You are either pulled out of the simulation, or brought into another one via Quantum suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide

>>4654558
Please read up on how quantum random number generators work. You will see how they rely on the laws of probability until the state vector is reduced/collapsed, then classical laws of physics emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Physical_phenomena_with_quantum-random
_properties

OK

So they got a random number generator going that operates on some quantum mechanical fluctuations.

Something something
Everyone had the same idea at one point
and this is proved because the numbers had some structure.

for some reason this computer is affected by it.


Maybe someone in the control room sneezed?
I've got a big "sneeze theory" on the origin of the universe, too.

How does saying we're in a simulation solve anything? What is the origin of those who simulate us? How did they come into existence?

>>4654607
Well, if we're looking for the origin of our universe, I think this may solve it. There is no way we would be able to find the origin of those who simulate us, unless we could directly interact with them.

>>4654598
It only happens at major events that the world population is aware of. Look at the data yourself.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

It isn't just one RNG, they are placed all around the world and they all change.

>>4654607
They do not have an origin.

The hypothesis is we exist on a closed time-like loop with an infinite number of simulated universes simulating other universes to ad infinitum.

We will eventually simulate a universe, which simulates another, etc. The universe effectively simulates itself.

why isn't biology fags working on a blue pill?

>>4654622
Well yeah I guess when an earthquake happens everyone in town goes
"oh shit an earthquake".
The fact that we have instant means of communication probably multiplies this effect.

Where does the machine gets its input from?

So if consciousness originates outside the simulation does that mean I can keep myself immortal by somehow maintaining a continuous connection with 'my' consciousness through successive clone/robot bodies?

FUCK YEA

>>4654636
They work just like all other quantum random number generators, the randomness is generated via the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. I believe they are all 2-qubit quantum computers.

>>4654392
You didn't link to an article; you didn't even link to something recent. You provided something that isn't a research document and doesn't state a hypothesis, sourcing it when it wasn't necessary to do so, and fashioning your post to be misconstrued as something it isn't.

This is not associated with Princeton in any way, and does not represent science any more than Timecube.com. Scroll to the bottom of the webpage.

Next you'll be telling us that www.quantumjumping.com is real.

Mods?

>>4654655
You can access all of Princeton's data here:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html

Their publications are available here:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/media.html

They have many major events listed here:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html

One of the most recent was the Obama democratic nomination, which showed a 2.172 variation.

Psychology isn't a science.

>>4654665
>and does not represent science any more than Timecube.com
Why are they published, why are they in control of a worldwide network of quantum computers, and why do they allow public access to data just like SETI?

I don't see any need for your rustled jimmies.

THIS IS A BULLSHIT PSEUDOSCIENCE PIECE OF CRAP!

They aren't even part of Princeton, and have no documentation.
This is a totally BUNK pseudo-science bunch of crap.

Go fuck yourself, pseudo-scientist. Take your fucked up lack of intelligence with you.

>>4654676
Please check the previous links,.

Alsoread this:

We can do several kinds of control trials, including matched analysis with a time offset in the database, or matched analysis using a pseudorandom clone database. However, the most general control analysis is achieved by comparisons with the empirical distributions of the test statistics. These provide a rigorous control background and confirm the analytical results for the formal series of hypothesis tests.

This is not psuedoscience.

>>4654671

>in control of a worldwide network of quantum computers
why do they allow public access to data just like SETI
>rustled jimmies

a) There are no quantum computers yet, as you know.
b) Gosh, I guess if anyone allows "public access to data" whatever effect they may be talking about is obviously real. Nice mention of SETI.
c) I am not rustled, I'm simply pointing out that this is not a university project, as the webpage itself says.

More in my next post.

>>4654505
So free will, right? I can't describe actions based on consciousness due to entropy.

>>4654683
>There are no quantum computers yet, as you know.
The results are produced from quantum random number generators, if you even know what those are.

>Gosh, I guess if anyone allows "public access to data" whatever effect they may be talking about is obviously real. Nice mention of SETI.
The project has been running since the 90's, if it was claimed to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, it wouldn't exist.

>I'm simply pointing out that this is not a university project, as the webpage itself says.
You're claiming this is pseudoscience.

There is a large backbone into simulation hypothesis, many physicists believe it is possible.

>>4654684
This does not imply free will, it implies consciousness outside of the physical laws.

>>4654693
So free will, right?

>>4654686
There are NO quantum computers built yet.
But someone like you would probably say that "all" computers are "quantum" and use more pseudo-mystical-science BULLSHIT to make a buzzing noise while throwing up as many "big words" as you can, yet anyone reading your tripe with a basic knowledge of modern science can SEE you are FULL OF SHIT.

YOU are FULL of FUCKING SHIT!!!!

sage this piece of shit

>>4654683

My next post.

Wavefunctions do not collapse. Nothing requires collapse as we would observe the universe we do now without it, and the most parsimonious explanation is that it doesn't happen. The quantum eraser experiment demonstrates how to "uncollapse" a "collapsed" wavefunction. We live in an undifferentiated wavefunction where consciousness is correlated to outcomes. If wavefunctions could collapse, they would destroy information, and the Schrödinger equation would not be reversible.

Quantum suicide may have a Wikipedia entry, but it assumes that every configuration of mass/energy can be reached by the laws of physics, which is false. The majority of possible mass/energy configurations are Garden of Eden patterns, which have no physical antecedent. In simpler language, it is easy to die in every universe; just because you can conceive of there always being another possibility does not mean it is physically realizable.

What do you have next that I may deconstruct for you and any interested readers?

>>4654683
Princeton has their own project with separate quantum random number generators.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

>>4654699
This does not imply free will

>>4654701
I think you need to calm down. It's called a "quantum random number generator" as it uses quantum fluctuations to obtain randomness.

If you read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Physical_phenomena_with_quantum-random
_properties

Maybe you'll understand.

Please take a course on Information theory, then come back to me.

>>4654708
From Wikipedia:

"The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. Its methods were controversial and at the end of February 2007, it closed its doors."

Not science.

Sorry guys, I want to believe, but there is no evidence as yet, and this whole quantum nonsense is just that.

Next?

I love the idea of noosphere. Sad though that tripfags makes it smell even more like bullshit.

>>4654710
I'll take my time to respond to this.

>Wavefunctions do not collapse.
If they did not, you would be denying the Copenhagen interpretation. The simulation hypothesis is still compatible with MWI which asserts no wave function collapse.

>Nothing requires collapse as we would observe the universe we do now without it, and the most parsimonious explanation is that it doesn't happen.
Again, you are denying the Copenhagen interpretation. Please present experimental evidence that debunks it.

>The quantum eraser experiment demonstrates how to "uncollapse" a "collapsed" wavefunction. We live in an undifferentiated wavefunction where consciousness is correlated to outcomes. If wavefunctions could collapse, they would destroy information, and the Schrödinger equation would not be reversible.

You're spewing pseudoscientific bullshit. The delayed choice quantum eraser does not refute a wave function collapse, it states that information is conserved while it is collapsed. Again, if your fallacies were true, the Copenhagen interpretation would not exist right now.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Schrodinger equation "being reversible". The Schrodinger equation describes the time evolution of the wave function.

>Quantum suicide may have a Wikipedia entry, but it assumes that every configuration of mass/energy can be reached by the laws of physics, which is false. The majority of possible mass/energy configurations are Garden of Eden patterns, which have no physical antecedent. In simpler language, it is easy to die in every universe; just because you can conceive of there always being another possibility does not mean it is physically realizable.
I'll just redirect you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

>that feel when you're nothing more than a nanobit in some supercomputer on another plane of existence

feels bad
also, this simulation sucks, can somebody hit the reset key please?

>>4654719
>Sorry guys, I want to believe, but there is no evidence as yet, and this whole quantum nonsense is just that.
If you actually look at the data, maybe you would see.

>The results are produced from quantum random number generators, if you even know what those are.
There's no need for insults, we settle things with our minds on this board, right? I know quite well what they are, I suspect you misspoke. In any case, this is some guy with a website that is not associated with the university in any way.

>if it was claimed to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, it wouldn't exist.
Oh God, if only that were true. So much crap on the internet would disappear.

>You're claiming this is pseudoscience.
Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, do you know what they call pseudoscience that works? Science.

>There is a large backbone into simulation hypothesis, many physicists believe it is possible.
I accept the simulation hypothesis except for a gigantic weak point I won't go into in this post. We could well be living in a simulation, but if we were, there's no reason to think we could affect the simulated laws of physics with our simulated minds.

So, I guess I'm waiting on some kind of support for your original post. So far, we've got a guy with a website, and... that's about it.

Well, if consciousness is something and that something is related to the order of the "real", that is, connected to the world that which we take it as real (physical or not, whatever you call it real), it would certainly has an effect on it.

What surprises me is the confusion surrounding how the influence of the consciousness takes place. The separation of science and religion, of truth and bullshit and so on, has led to strange side effects, even to those searching for the truth. So consciousness begins to be tested for something else, as a force that could act through the same ways magnetism, friction, gravity or lightning would work, that is: phisically and more or less direct.

Self-help books and bullshit things of all kind work under the premise that if you cheer or pray or repeat to yourself enough times, physical consequences will be seen. Curse your glass of water and it would turn into piss.

For anyone into science, that's pure bullshit. The logical way says water can't hear you. Your cursing is just as meaningful as a compliment, for they are both, from the perspective of the glass of water, just some shortwaves. I find that to be pretty obvious, but there are two points I'd like to highlight: why is that so obvious to us? And why is that people still try to find a mystic power of that order? I'd like to treat this seriously, with no calling it bullshit and leaving at that.

cont

>>4654754 cont

The answer to both questions is that we think of the world under terms of cause and effect and at the same time we live surrounded by things we don't understand. I don't mean that no one understands or that it is impossible to understand, but that in our daily lives we are always bumping in coincidences and chance. And you say "if I was 2 min late, that man would have bought the book I was looking for". And you are bonded to that man, by something that has its root on unknown reasons. That is, a collection of factors (which are not arranged in any order), made the other guy like the same book you do and go to that bookstore at the same time. What does it matter that the man had left his watch at home and picked it up before leaving, making him late? It's a coincidence, and yet we search for something meaningful to it.

Apophenia is the name we give to seeing patterns where there is none. If you look at a random image long enough, you'll see a face or an animal, because, to our heads, we are important enough to deserve something that makes sense over randomness. The man didn't forget his watch because you were destined to buy the book instead of him, he forgot his watch because he left it somewhere else that day and took a second more for him to notice.

cont

>>4654759 cont

The difference, however, is that we look at coincidences only when they already happened. The connection we make during the insight of the coincidence will always be meaningful to us, regardless of how and why it happened, just that it did. Being meaningful here means that, more than the usual, the effect the forgotten watch had on reality expanded, because not only you have a book in hands (which would happen whether you notice the other man or not), but it made you think for a while on it, it will give new importance to that day and to the book, and it will effect who you are from now on, even at a tiny degree.

With science, we look for something from the starting point. We create hypothesis and simulate scenarios. And that by cleaning up the possibilities that are out of our control, we are sweeping away the coincidence. So meaning is generated by the cause and effect. Sometimes it goes as expected, sometimes it doesn't, but it is the relationship between what happends and what was expected that dictates the meaning of the experiment.

cont

>>4654762 cont

The pseudo-science bullshit of "what the bleep do we know" and other stuff like that is in this limbo between mysticism and science. The key mistake is trying to fit one method into the other, merging conflicting approaches to try and create an absolute one, in which all the mysticism is true and all based on scientific concepts. Science in itself is also trying to find a unified theory, but the major difference is the honesty to say that we don't have it yet. But the self-help crowd still confuses words and methods, in which coincidences are fruit of cause and effect (God or whatever made the man forget the watch so you can have the book) and treating science as a work of silly guessing, of chance and enclosured in itself like a religion would be ("the scientists" know, the others don't, as if it is not possible for anyone with means and patient to understand any claim given by the scientific community, which is not the case for groups based on authority).

Water can't hear you because it has no ears. But it's fascinating to think that it could, so people try to look for it even if it makes no sense.

Meanwhile, language happends. Your consciousness affects your decisions and thus your actions and thus the physical world. And that happends to be a system, with a particular set of rules that work hidden from the physical radar. So that if you hear a soundwave that is like this or like that, major differences will arise, because to your self, one is a compliment and other a curse. One could sit and analyze the numbers behind the sounds and the consequence of those sounds and not understand the difference, until the meaning of the words are brought to the surface.

>>4654749
>So, I guess I'm waiting on some kind of support for your original post. So far, we've got a guy with a website, and... that's about it.
Again, I linked you to the data directly.

If you'd like the journal articles, here
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830711002321

http://teilhard.global-mind.org/papers/pdf/GCP.JSE.B&N.2008.pdf

http://teilhard.global-mind.org/papers/pdf/GCP.JSE.B&N.2008.pdf

>>4654764 cont

And that in a world that is filled with images and words, that ancient symbols like windows and doors are spread through digital interfaces of a more and more complex system under our noses, we don't understand the consequences of the language we use. That a rumor can ruin a man or a good speaker can rule a nation, that a movie can sell a product and change how people see other movies and other products in the future. That the consequence of those images are not well arranged, because we are constantly compensating our misguidance with obsession over order. That we are desperate for patterns that will grant us power like the super heroes (that we "created"), so we can be smart like the aliens (that we "saw"), so we can be worthy of god (that we "felt"). Or maybe to take all this power from us, all this responsibility, with the atomic bomb in hands and the power to move crowds, we like to imagine we are small under the shadow of a bigger society or universe.

cont

>>4654770 cont

And that maybe if we collect enough data, more and more, we are able to find doors to that bigger world, so we can finally rest and take this weight off our shoulders. We are looking (like scientists) for some meaningful relationship between what happends and what we expect, even though what we expect is but a reflection of our desperation, of our confusion, over the things we know and the things we don't know, of what we can do and what we can't. Desperate for a system in which randomness and coincidence can be explained and predicted, so that when the man forgets the watch and you buy the book he wanted to buy, you don't have to think or feel over it, because it was cause and effect, it is solved, it won't puzzle you, challenge you or change you. We will be ghosts, fully satisfied, in a secure and known world of limitless possibilities, in which religion is true, what you want happends, what you need is there and there is nothing more for you to want now that you embrace it all.

This experiment has a bad premise, bad hypothesis and a bad method. And on top of it all, no merit for being on the internet. It denies language and symbols and works with consciousness on the realm of the physical, which is a horrible approach in my opinion.

end

>>4654766
Sorry, that last link was supposed to be this

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t327585305rj823t/

>>4654754
>>4654759
>>4654762
>>4654764
>>4654770
>>4654772
tl;dr version?

Are qualia hard science?

>you would be denying the Copenhagen interpretation. The simulation hypothesis is still compatible with MWI which asserts no wave function collapse.
I hate to keep quoting Wikipedia, but it's right there, man:
"The reality of wave function collapse has always been debatable, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence. In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity and is commonly taught at the graduate level (e.g. Cohen-Tannoudji's standard textbook). Collapse may be understood as an update in a probabilistic model, given the observed result."

If collapse doesn't happen, the funnily enough, your argument does. Also, I'm not denying the simulation hypothesis. In a way, a simulation that allowed simulated minds to alter simulated reality would be a bad simulation, no? One does not imply the other.

>You're spewing pseudoscientific bullshit.
Now now, no need to be rude. What part of it is 'pseudoscientific', exactly? I thought this was all quite well-known, and I can provide links for further reading if you'd like.

>the Copenhagen interpretation would not exist right now.
I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this particular interpretation. Last I heard, there were several contenders for interpreting the 'reality' behind QM, and Copenhagen is already falling out of favour.

>I'm not sure what you mean by the Schrodinger equation "being reversible"
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5x66436r2802251/

>>4654776
Consciousness exists, affects our every day lives, acts through the collective, but it won't change numbers on a screen directly or make your plants grow better.

>>4654392
>noosphere.princeton.edu/

princeton grad student here. what the flying fuck is this.

Can someone explain this as simply as possible?
I'm dumb as fuck.

Oh god what

>>4654766
Sir. Although I've given you the benefit of doubt this far, I am really beginning to think are you are trolling. This gentleman is not a scientist. This is not an experimental setup. No one has reproduced his 'results.' Do you really believe this stuff?

>>4654797
It's babby's first statistics

Read this, don't claim bullshit pseudoscience without reading it
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_4_helfrich.pdf

>>4654810
i didn't make much of an effort to parse that abstract. got to "psychokinetic effect" and tuned out. lol.

i just want to find out who on princeton registered that name.

>>4654803
Hmm, perhaps I scared the tripfag away. Thank goodness. Saging just to be safe, no need to clutter up /sci/ with this crap any further.

Look at some of the stuff on this dude's site:
- poetic history
- the egg story
- globalbrainpaint
- musical
- interlude
- planetary smile

Man, this guy makes quantumjumping.org look like an amazingly professional outfit.

>>4654803
The last IQ fundie thread, after it hit 350 posts and autosaged, he finally admitted he was trolling.

http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4649267#p4650447

>>4654823
Nice! I has defeated a troll with logic and reason and references, and I didn't even have to call him names. Oh, well I did call him a tripfag, but that's after he slunk away.

>>4654392
Why are people replying to this trolling nonsense?
>>>/x/ for a reason.

>>4654830
Because peak oil and qualia

>>4654795
>If collapse doesn't happen, the funnily enough, your argument does.
Okay, suit yourself. Again, this doesn't at all change the perspective of the simulation argument or conscious involvement, it just means that every possibility has a different universe. Decoherence would produce the same phenomena.

>What part of it is 'pseudoscientific', exactly?
I'll link back to your post
> live in an undifferentiated wavefunction where consciousness is correlated to outcomes
This makes absolutely no sense.

>If wavefunctions could collapse, they would destroy information, and the Schrödinger equation would not be reversible.
Again, even if it's decoherence or many-worlds, it doesn't change the perspective.

>Last I heard, there were several contenders for interpreting the 'reality' behind QM, and Copenhagen is already falling out of favour.
I side with Copenhagen as it is the most widely accepted. All surveys of preferred interpretations by physicists result in Copenhagen being the most widely accepted.

>http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5x66436r2802251/
Okay, that again is just demonstrating conservation of energy, which again makes sense in the simulation argument. I mistook what you meant by "reversible" Not sure how this is related.


>>4654823
I am not trolling.

>>4654864
>demonstrating conservation of energy
meant
>demonstrating conservation of information

>>4654868
>demonstrating conservation of information
lol

lrn2entropy

>>4654870
Please read up on the measurement problem.

The paper is describing information in its relation to entropy, which is not conserved. I am saying this makes sense.

>star ocean 3's take on simulated reality theory
>may actually be correct

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

>>4654710
>Schrodinger equation reversible
>The majority of possible mass/energy configurations are Garden of Eden patterns
derp

>>4654864
Holy Christ, it's back.

>this doesn't at all change the perspective of the simulation argument
The simulation hypothesis does not in any way suggest that the inhabitants within the simulation can affect the simulated laws of physics. You're going to have to explain this one, because it makes no sense.

>live in an undifferentiated wavefunction where consciousness is correlated to outcomes
>This makes absolutely no sense.
It means that collapse is not necessary for you to observe a single outcome. What the observer sees and the state of the object have become correlated by the act of measurement or observation. In MWI, there is now a universe in which each outcome has occurred and each observer sees a different thing - and perhaps mistakenly thinks they have 'collapsed' the wavefunction into that particular outcome. This is pretty standard stuff, fundie.

In any case, this website is run by some guy. Just some guy, not a scientist. He can generate all the data he wants, he has the burden of proof to carry.

>I mistook what you meant by "reversible" Not sure how this is related.
Like in the above example, if there really were only a single outcome after an observation, information about the superposition would be destroyed. In MWI, this doesn't happen. The fact that the Schrödinger equation does not destroy information - and hence is reversible - is further support for the idea that collapse doesn't happen.

So,

1) Even if we were in a simulation - which we very well could be - that implies nothing for our ability to affect the simulated laws of physics around us. You assume dualism in order to prove it.
2) You use this guy's website to 'prove' wavefunction collapse by the conscious mind. Come on.

>>4654917
The reversability of the wave equation is well understood. Just Google it, man. The implication is that the universe doesn't destroy information - such as superpositions.

"Garden of Eden patterns" are from Conway's Game of Life, and are configurations that cannot be reached by earlier ones. I forgive you for not knowing the reference, which is admittedly obscure. The majority of all mass/energy patters possible in the universe are not reachable from earlier states. Therefore quantum suicide is bunk.

>>4654940
I know what both of the things you said mean. You apparently missed the part where they are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY.

>>4654952
the nonlinear one, i mean.

>>4654940
>The reversability of the wave equation is well understood.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hh

the wave equation is most fucking definitely not reversible.

>>4654883
I can't believe I am agreeing with you. Yes, information is conserved in the universe.

But you make my point. Wavefunction collapse obscures information. If not - where did the superpositions go? This is just one of many problems with the concept.

Again, I'd love to believe that our minds/souls/consciousness can influence phenomena. But that's dualism, man, and is incoherent as a concept. Every single time this is studied in the lab, it fails to produce results. If it did, we would be using it. The government funded it for decades, and stopped because there are no effects. I am sorry.

>>4654926
>This is pretty standard stuff, fundie.
No, it is not, because a majority of people reject the MWI. I have yet to see a single course in any physics department which embraces the MWI.

>Just some guy, not a scientist. He can generate all the data he wants, he has the burden of proof to carry.
He does not run the random number generators, it is a collection of post graduates and PhDs. It's not one guy.

>is further support for the idea that collapse doesn't happen.
Regardless of how it happens, the state vector is reduced. If you deny this, you deny an \hbar -> 0 limit.

>You use this guy's website to 'prove' wavefunction collapse by the conscious mind. Come on.
I use it to show that consciousness has a role outside of physical laws.

>>4654940
What is a "mass/energy pattern"? Do you mean eigenstates of the Schrodinger equation? Transformations between possible gauges of a local group in a Y-M theory? Degrees of freedom in an N=4 superpotential? The terminology you are using is very confusing.

>>4654952
C'mon, man. Lazy lazy lazy.

www.lmgtfy.com/?q=schrodinger+equation+reversibility

>>4654968
the schrodinger equation is reversible. that is not the nonlinear wave equation.

>>4654960
>Wavefunction collapse obscures information. If not - where did the superpositions go? This is just one of many problems with the concept.
I am not using the 1920's interpretation of wave function collapse. I am using the term as it is modernly referred to as "reduction of the state vector".

You are arguing over terminology, this is not the point I am trying to make.

>Yes, information is conserved in the universe.
No, it is not. Information is formally equivalent to entropy, which can not be a conserved quantity; therefore, information can not be a conserved quantity, even if reformulated in quantum operators.

>>4654973
Please leave.

You are not contributing to the thread.

If you'd like, you can try to disprove Dualism.

protip: You cannot.

>>4654985
I can. Prove that Dualism exists.

>>4654985
As I usually understand it, dualism is completely untestable. And as I'm oft to say, anyone making a factual assertion without evidence is being retarded.

>>4654926
>This is pretty standard stuff, fundie.
>No, it is not, because a majority of people reject the MWI. I have yet to see a single course in any physics department which embraces the MWI.
C'mon man. MWI is a mainstream interpretation as well you know. In any case, even Copenhagen is mute on wavefunction collapse, does not propose a mechanism for it, and provides no theory for falsification. Physics departments sensibly focus on the math and physics and leave interpretation for the philosophers.

>it is a collection of post graduates and PhDs. It's not one guy.
...with a 'global experimental setup'? This is not science. The fact that there are devices with different tolerances set up in different places using different procedures with different people should be enough red flags for anyone serious about science to question the 'results.'

>is further support for the idea that collapse doesn't happen.
Regardless of how it happens, the state vector is reduced. If you deny this, you deny an \hbar -> 0 limit.
The vector is reduced in each observer's universe, but the overall superposition of the universe remains unchanged.

>I use it to show that consciousness has a role outside of physical laws.
How? With his 'data' that have come from nonscientific experiments that can't be reproduced. As well you know, the role in consciousness affecting RNGs has been studied for decades in controlled laboratory settings and no effect has been found.

>The terminology you are using is very confusing.
Sorry, I thought you'd get it. It was a side comment on quantum suicide, which is tangential to your claims anyhow. Ignore it.

>>4655004
If you look at the publications in the OP, maybe you would see.

>>4655012
>it is a collection of post graduates and PhDs. It's not one guy.

names? i'm literally on the princeton campus right fucking now.

it's a joke.

OP is a lying troll, a fake and a fraud, and a stupid fucking piece of shit that amazingly has developed the ability to type and post responses on 4chan.

"Duality" has no supporting facts because a liar is defending duality. If you want to sound intelligent, it helps if you are honest instead of a fraudulent pseudo-scientist who comes here to troll because you've got something stuck up your butt.

>>4654392

Princeton will never be able wash this shitstain from its name.

Ok guys. That's it.
I'm not the real IQ fundie, I was just trolling.
It was fun while it lasted.

>>4655012
>The fact that there are devices with different tolerances set up in different places using different procedures with different people should be enough red flags for anyone serious about science to question the 'results.'
If you would read the FAQ, you would see that you arr wrong.

>The vector is reduced in each observer's universe, but the overall superposition of the universe remains unchanged.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. MWI uses deterministic dynamics and ignores the fact of state vector reduction, rather it uses subject-object states of all possible eigenvalues in every universe.

Regardless, we are not discussing MWI in here. I am not responding anymore to MWI.

>As well you know, the role in consciousness affecting RNGs has been studied for decades in controlled laboratory settings and no effect has been found.
Please provide citations.

>>4654978

>You are arguing over terminology, this is not the point I am trying to make.
Well, I'm trying to argue over the concepts, so I agree we should not get sidetracked on terminology. The idea that consciousness exists outside the physical universe and can affect it is knows as dualism, and we all know the problems that viewpoint has. I sympathize with you, again I really want to believe, but decades of study with RNGs show no effect. It would be extremely cool if they did. I would be very excited if they did. But they don't. Sorry.

>No, it is not. Information is formally equivalent to entropy, which can not be a conserved quantity; therefore, information can not be a conserved quantity, even if reformulated in quantum operators.
You are wrong. Even Hawking conceded and lost the bet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93Preskill_bet

I don't know which universe you live in, but in this one, information is conserved.

>>4655029
You are not me. Please leave. This thread is only at 100 posts.

>>4655011
It is testable if it is shown that consciousness changes physical laws.

>names? i'm literally on the princeton campus right fucking now.
Look up the publications yourself.

>>4655042
>but decades of study with RNGs show no effect.
Again, Please provide citations


>I don't know which universe you live in, but in this one, information is conserved.
Please provide a definition of "information". Do you know what entropy is?

>>4655042
Further to this, in case you don't follow the embedded link to the black hole information paradox:
"...suggests that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to evolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time. A fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense."

Read that last sentence again. You may make any claim you personally want, but the current view of science and quantum mechanics is that information is conserved. Wavefunction collapse doesn't happen. Consciousness does not have a special, privileged role in the universe. We are made of atoms just like our experimental setups that show superposition.

>>4655029

There's no such thing as a real IQ fundie. He's a myth propagated by rich white individuals to scare people into believing Qualia exist so that peak oil will collapse society and they will feast upon the bones of the lower classes.

>>4655051
Your definition of information does not relate entropy. We are not discussion this any further. Liouville's theorem implies determinism, and the necessary facts (ie MWI evidence, or data collected from an actual black hole instead of philosophical circle-jerking) has not been found. Your claims are irrelevant to the discussion.

>but the current view of science and quantum mechanics is that information is conserved.
No, it is not. The unitary evolution of a quantum state is deterministic, but at the moment of collapse, new information appears. The Liouville's theorem holds only if for each state there is exactly one future and exactly one past. QM violates the first, GR the latter. There are theories (like the Hawking radiation) that violate both. Hawking radiation is not experimentally conformable. There any many other theories which resolve the black hole information paradox without violating fundamental axioms of QM.

>Wavefunction collapse doesn't happen.
State vector reduction does. Prove to me there are infinite parallel universes.

>Consciousness does not have a special, privileged role in the universe.
Prove it. Data in the OP suggests otherwise.

>We are made of atoms just like our experimental setups that show superposition.
Nonsense.

>>4655049
>It is testable if it is shown that consciousness changes physical laws.
Granted. This guy's website and 'global project' do not show that. His 'data' may show that, but he's not using a scientific setup.

>names? i'm literally on the princeton campus right fucking now.
>Look up the publications yourself.
This wasn't me.

>but decades of study with RNGs show no effect.
>Again, Please provide citations
Oddly - have a look here:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Currentresearch/Radin_belltolls.html
It happens to be about this very guy, and his 'research.' From the article:
"In the l930s, Professor J. B. Rhine and his colleagues at Duke University began to systematically study mind-matter interactions by examining whether mind could influence tossed dice."

This has been being investigated by many studies over many decades. There's always the suggestion that they are seeing some effect, which mysteriously disappears under controlled laboratory conditions.

>Please provide a definition of "information". Do you know what entropy is?
I thought you didn't want to argue over terminology. I know I don't. I provided a link before you posted about the evolution of the unitary operator. The current view of science is that information is conserved. This is standard science, bub.

>>4655054
You are not me.

>>4655074
>We are made of atoms just like our experimental setups that show superposition.
>Nonsense.
Oh boy. We got a dualist in the house. Not sure what more I can say to you, really. If you believe there's something more, nothing can help you.

>>4655091
Prove that qualia are physical.

>>4655080
>His 'data' may show that, but he's not using a scientific setup.
Yes he is. His publications would not exist, and Princeton would not allow him to use that subdomain.

>This wasn't me
I know, I was linking to someone else.

>which mysteriously disappears under controlled laboratory conditions.
Nothing in that article demonstrates that. I've asked for a published, scientific paper showing that quantum random number generators do not produce these effects.

>I thought you didn't want to argue over terminology.
The standard definition of information is related to entropy. You claim entropy can be reversed.

>The current view of science is that information is conserved.
No, it is not. The black hole information paradox is not resolved under any means. Go to a physics department and ask them if they believe entropy can be reversed and QM implies an infinite number of parallel universes. They will laugh at you.

>>4655074
>Consciousness does not have a special, privileged role in the universe.
>Prove it. Data in the OP suggests otherwise.

I'm getting weary of repeating this: the OP's link to some guy's website does not 'prove' anything. He is not a scientist, these are not controlled laboratory conditions, and so this 'proof' has no weight.

And the burden of proof is not upon me, sir. Your position is that magical influence from my awareness affects the universe in a nonmaterial way.

>>4655101
>He is not a scientist
Him and his colleagues have PhDs.

> these are not controlled laboratory conditions
You keep repeating that. Read the FAQ on that website thoroughly.

>Your position is that magical influence from my awareness affects the universe in a nonmaterial way.
Occam's razor. If consciousness paints our reality, there is no need for wave function collapse, multiple words, or any other nonsense.

/sci/ will always be shit

;_;

>>4655115
You are not contributing to the thread.

Please do so or leave.

>4655099
>His 'data' may show that, but he's not using a scientific setup.
>Yes he is. His publications would not exist, and Princeton would not allow him to use that subdomain.
Your saying it does not make it so. Princeton has no affiliation with the man's project, and his website says so. In fact, I'm sure he must use this disclaimer, or the university would sue him.

>Nothing in that article demonstrates that. I've asked for a published, scientific paper showing that quantum random number generators do not produce these effects.
I don't need to provide you anything. I'm not making any claim, you are. And as you should know, a single study does not 'prove' anything anyhow. This is why many studies have been done, and none of them show measurable effects under laboratory conditions.

>The standard definition of information is related to entropy. You claim entropy can be reversed.
I said information, not entropy, and I made no such claim. The view of science at the current time is that information is conserved.

>The current view of science is that information is conserved.
>No, it is not. The black hole information paradox is not resolved under any means.
Ask Hawking. He conceded, and I'm going to speculate he knows more about this than you.

>Go to a physics department and ask them if they believe entropy can be reversed and QM implies an infinite number of parallel universes. They will laugh at you.
I made no such claim about entropy. QM does not imply an infinite number of parallel universes, this is an interpretation. Finally, why you think a physics department or the particular people staffing them are the arbiters of what is true and what is not is, in itself, laughable.

Again, I am sympathetic to you. I wish I could believe this, but no effect has been shown, and this guy hasn't acheived that. Go and ask any physics department!

>>4655140
>And as you should know, a single study does not 'prove' anything anyhow.
No studies have shown that it is not influenced.

>This is why many studies have been done, and none of them show measurable effects under laboratory conditions.
All of them do. Please link to one that shows nothing above the norm. That is what I am asking.

>The view of science at the current time is that information is conserved.
You keep saying that, no, it is not.

Please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

> QM does not imply an infinite number of parallel universes, this is an interpretation.
It is the only interpretation which supports information conservation.

>Again, I am sympathetic to you. I wish I could believe this, but no effect has been shown, and this guy hasn't acheived that.
You are the one arguing over these irrelevant things.

>>4655157
Please also see this thread for reference

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=416099

>>4655111
>Him and his colleagues have PhDs.
Fine. Doesn't mean their setup is controlled in any way that can lead to reliable results.

> these are not controlled laboratory conditions
>You keep repeating that. Read the FAQ on that website thoroughly.
Okay, I just did. I loved the question: "We are gathering a large number of people to meditate and pray for peace in the world. Can you measure the power of our efforts to effect social change?" Cracked me right up.

I did not, however, see where they are able to control their experimental setup in any scientific way.

>Occam's razor. If consciousness paints our reality, there is no need for wave function collapse, multiple words, or any other nonsense.
You have not offered a mechanism or theory by which we can 'paint our reality.' Copenhagen certainly doesn't. And MWI shows that collapse is unnecessary to explain what we observe, and it doesn't require collapse.

Your turn.

>>4655140
>Your saying it does not make it so. Princeton has no affiliation with the man's project, and his website says so. In fact, I'm sure he must use this disclaimer, or the university would sue him.

princeton grad student here, with a server and domain on princeton.edu. i don't think anyone gives a shit what we host. any computer on a static ip gets an address. no one is going to censor stuff, unless you're explicitly claiming to speak for princeton or something stupid like that.

>>4655049
>It is testable if it is shown that consciousness changes physical laws.
Great! That means we've basically disproved it. Randi's reward has gone unclaimed for a long, long time, which is basically proof of absence.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

>>4655175
>You have not offered a mechanism or theory by which we can 'paint our reality.'

Please see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem#.22Consciousness_causes_collapse.22
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

>>4655187
This is not paranormal at all. It is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Please see the links in the other post.

>>4655192
>consciousness changes physical laws.
Randi's reward covers this. Call it whatever you want. It's been disproven. Now go away.

>>4655198
Explain this:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830711002321

>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830711002321
>paysite
Bullshit. One or more of:
blatant lies
dishonest manipulation of data
confirmation bias

>>4655157
>No studies have shown that it is not influenced.
This does not carry the burden of proof.

>The view of science at the current time is that information is conserved.
You keep saying that, no, it is not.

Please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

I understand Maxwell's Demon just fine, thanks. And any Google search will tell you that the current view just as I've said. But you want a 'scholarly' reference - try this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437109004877

>It is the only interpretation which supports information conservation.
It's not the only one, but the Copenhagen interpretation does not, which you've said you favour. But again, Copenhagen provides no theory or mechanism for collapse.

>You are the one arguing over these irrelevant things.
I'm not sure opposing the idea that the mind can influence matter is irrelevant.

>>4655215
Prove it. Show me another published paper with contradicting results.

>>4655220
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437109004877
That paper details no experimental evidence suggesting information conservation. Please source this.

>>4655223
>Prove it. Show me another published paper with contradicting results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
Materialism reductionism is true. Get over yourself. Every paper and every experiment ever support it.

>>4655235
Okay, fine. You win in that regard.

Prove to me that observation does not reduce the state vector.

>>4655235
Okay, fine. You win.

Prove to me that observation does not reduce the state vector.

>>4655239
No name? So, he's samefagging too? Excellent.

I don't know what that means. I'm sadly ignorant of a lot of quantum theory.

>>4655244
>>4655248
Ha, he deleted his post without the name.

>>4655248
I forgot to put my trip back on, I was participating in another thread.

>I don't know what that means. I'm sadly ignorant of a lot of quantum theory.
Fair enough. My point still remains valid. The von Neumann interpretation is still valid, even without the content in the OP, and wins due to Occam's Razor.

>>4655188
Okay, read it. I was struck by this, which is one of the points I'm making:
"In the Copenhagen interpretation ...[w]hat constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory." Reduction of the vector? Sure, it's part of the mathematics. Consciousness makes wavefunctions collapse? Sorry, that's not part of Copenhagen.

Also, glad you brought up Wigner's friend. It supports my point - there is no need for collapse. The cat did not live or die, but is in superposition; Wigner, upon opening the box, is in a superposition of seeing live cat/dead cat; and Wigner's friend who opens the door to the laboratory is in superposition of seeing happy Wigner/sad Wigner. It just goes on and on, and is equivalent to the current preferred emphasis on decoherence, not wavefunction collapse.

Why would anyone think that they made the cat alive or dead with their consciousness? Very odd.

>>4655262
I still don't know what that means. If you're trying to say that something can affect physical reality that is not reducable to the basic laws of physics, then you're full of shit. Examples of this include: "consciousness affects material reality at a distance" or some such BS.
>>>/x/ for a reason

>>4655267
>Also, glad you brought up Wigner's friend. It supports my point - there is no need for collapse. The cat did not live or die, but is in superposition; Wigner, upon opening the box, is in a superposition of seeing live cat/dead cat; and Wigner's friend who opens the door to the laboratory is in superposition of seeing happy Wigner/sad Wigner. It just goes on and on, and is equivalent to the current preferred emphasis on decoherence, not wavefunction collapse.

This is Wigner and von Neuman's point if you read the article.

>Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.

>Why would anyone think that they made the cat alive or dead with their consciousness? Very odd.
Because observation is only done by a conscious observer. You cannot reduce the state vector until you observe it. This was a classic example that Einstein refuted.
>Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."[23] and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"[24] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".

>>4655271
Please learn 2nd semester quantum mechanics before commenting further. You do not understand the role of the observer.

>>4655231
>That paper details no experimental evidence suggesting information conservation. Please source this.
Dude, it's the no-deleting theorem. I'm not running all over teh interwebs for you. I am making standard claims that are well-known in QM, while you suggest dualism is true - again, extraordinary claims requre extraordinary evidence, which you don't have.

These are the last helpful links I will give you with regard to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem
http://sciexplorer.blogspot.ca/2012/04/holographic-universe.html

The second article is much easier to read, and covers this topic specifically.

>>4655282
>Please learn 2nd semester quantum mechanics before commenting further. You do not understand the role of the observer.
I know enough to know you're quoting a controversial position. Consciousness is not special. The mind is merely the effects of the brain, a bio-chemical machine, no different than any other machine. The laws of physics don't distinguish between a rock and a human brain, except for the obvious differences according to the different chemical etc. compositions. The human brain's observable behavior can be described in terms of a reduction to the base laws of physics. There is no "magic" in there.

As for this other point of "conscious creatures are special". No. This is a philosophical point that is not testable.

>>4654392
Please, don't mindfuck me anymore.

>>4655267
>This is Wigner and von Neuman's point if you read the article.

Then you concede! Nothing collapses the wavefunction, you are embedded in a larger superposition. Phew! It took a while, but you finally get it.

Because of this, at no time does an observer affect the universe in the way you suggest. That's certainly why study after study shows no observed effect of meditation, prayer, or anything else on random-number generators.

And please - don't point us back to the "global consciousness" website again. This is becoming tiresomely circular. IF you believe an uncontrolled experiment is showing results, then you'll believe anything.

>>4655291
You are siding with physicalism. Please support your claims with evidence.

Do you at least know bra-ket notation? I can provide an example.

>>4655288
The information paradox is called a paradox for a reason, you know. It is not resolved. There are theoretical resolutions for it, but none of them have been conclusively found to be true, because we cannot observe a black hole directly. You would win a Nobel, no doubt, if you resolved the information paradox with experimental observation. This is why you cannot find any.

I am agnostic towards the topic, I am just stating that the original formulation of QM and thermodynamics requires information to not be conserved. There are alternatives, I am not denying them. I am simply saying you do not have empirical evidence to go in either direction.

Regardless, this is irrelevant. I am not discussing this any further. Believe what you want.

>You are siding with physicalism. Please support your claims with evidence.
Physicalism is ill-defined, or at least different people interpret it to mean different things.

We're now going to agree that there is a physical, shared reality. I am not going to attempt to define these terms, because that would take hours.

We can talk about physical things existing or not existing in this shared physical reality. Human brains exist in this shared physical reality. All of our evidence to date shows that the external observable behavior of these brains, and every other physical object, conforms to some basic rules of physics. We don't know these rules completely yet (if ever), but what evidence we do have clearly demonstrates that human brains are no more special in terms of their observable behavior than a rock, a star, or a car. I like to call this position materialistic reductionism - it's a claim that the all material things, including the observable behavior of the human brain, behaves according to rules reducible to basic physics. In other words, it's includes the claim that we don't need special rules for the externally observable behavior of brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

One google. Variants don't pass the p-test. They're skewing data. It really is just random.

>>4655306
>Because of this, at no time does an observer affect the universe in the way you suggest.
I don't think you understand.

If we have a particle in a superposition of states
<span class="math">|\psi\rangle=c_{+}|\psi_{+}\rangle + c_{+}|\psi_{-}\rangle[/spoiler]
If we treat the particle+measuring device as a single system, the state vector reads
<span class="math">|\Phi\rangle = c_{+}|\psi_{+}\rangle|\phi_{+}\rangle + c_{-}|\psi_{-}\rangle|\phi_{-}\rangle[/spoiler]
Now, say a device measures the system and I walk out of the room. This device now has states <span class="math">|\phi'_{+}\rangle[/spoiler] and <span class="math">|phi'_{-}\rangle[/spoiler], and looks like
<span class="math">|\Phi'\rangle=c_{+}|\psi_{+}\rangle | \phi'_{+} \rangle + c_{-} | \psi_{-} \rangle | \phi'_{-}\rangle[/spoiler]
so the value is either <span class="math">|c_{+}|^{2}[/spoiler] or <span class="math">|c_{-}|^{2}[/spoiler]

The state vector <span class="math">|\Phi'\rangle[/spoiler] collapses/reduces (terminology is irrelevant) at the moment this device answers to me when I walk back into the room, and the probability that the alternative result was obtained is zero. For example, the particle was detected in the eigenstate <span class="math">|\psi_{+}[/spoiler].

>>4655316
Sigh...

Please see if you can read this, it's slightly technical, but perhaps you'll understand.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402121v2.pdf

>>4655325
That's really giving the position too much credit. I knew that already without even looking it up. That sounds unscientific, but it's not like I'm going to take the word of a troll and an article behind a paywall over well established scientific fact. Had he linked to a bunch of articles in news organizations claiming we found someone with documented telepathy powers or some such, then I would be interested.

Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation reported by Nelson and Radin existed only in their chosen time window. Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to say they have found a correlation. Wolcotte Smith said "A couple of additional statistical adjustments would have to be made to determine if there really was a spike in the numbers," referencing the data related to September 11, 2001. Similarly, Jeffrey D. Scargle believes unless both Bayesian and classical p-value analysis agree and both show the same anomalous effects, the kind of result GCP proposes will not be generally accepted.

I am praying for you, fundie, to see the truth. I am asking others to pray for you as well. Since this is a demonstrated effect, I know we can change your mind.

>>4655330
>Posts as "scientist"
>doesn't have access to academic journals

lol. i mean the guy is a fag but come on.

>>4655326
>mind-independent reality.
See - this is what I don't care about. I'm not claiming whether we live in The Matrix, nor am I claiming we don't live in The Matrix. I'm claiming regardless that whenever we have looked into it, the human brain reduces to the rules of physics, and no more.

You're arguing something different. I'm arguing that the observable behavior of the human mind is reducible to physics. You're arguing for or against a "true" physical reality, or some such, and I really don't care.

We can agree to the existence of the physical chair I'm sitting on. Whether that chair is "really there" - I don't care. It's untestable drivel to even think such questions.

>>4655343
My mind is already changed about the content in the OP. It is not regarding Dualism.

>>4655330
The simulation perspective routes that consciousness is a different part of the simulation. Events are in a state of suspended animation until they are observed by a conscious individual.

>>4655341
Most researchers would only have access to scientific journals at their place of empiloyment, not at home... just saying.

>>4655356
>Events are in a state of suspended animation until they are observed by a conscious individual.
Untestable drivel.

>>4655343
>I am asking others to pray
Ooo, can we use voodoo dolls too? Let me get out the needles!

Seriously, whenever someone prays for me, I do have to exercise some control to refrain from laughing at them. What's next - a blood sacrifice of a goat?

>>4655358
You cannot know what is going on unless you observe it. This is the essence of quantum mechanics.

When you are not observing something, it is in a superposition of all possible states until the wave function is collapsed when observation occurs. The state at which it collapses into is inherently random. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that no process occurs in between besides time evolution of the wave function. There is lots of evidence demonstrating this.

>>4655356

>My mind is already changed about the content in the OP. It is not regarding Dualism.
Holy fuck, it works!


>The simulation perspective routes that consciousness is a different part of the simulation. Events are in a state of suspended animation until they are observed by a conscious individual.

>inferring the architecture of an imaginary computer in which we're all living

>>4655361
sure, i mean i can vpn to my university in two seconds, so complaining about paywalls is silly.

obviously i'm not going to click anything 3 times to read some faux-science, lol.

>>4655372
>>inferring the architecture of an imaginary computer in which we're all living
Many people support this.

Many people support Dualism.

Prove any of them wrong. I dare you.

Quick, everyone concentrate really hard on IQfundie dying. Let's prove him right

>>4655371
Please device me an experiment and describe to me possible coherent results of that experiment which might demonstrate that you are wrong.

For me - if there was good repeatable statistical evidence that someone has the power of telepathy, that would prove that I am wrong. If there was good repeatable statistical evidence that when everyone was happy then the next day it rained more, then that would prove I am wrong.

I don't even know what you're saying now. That's part of the problem of such bullshit conversations like these. They straddle the line between the testable and not, and they always try to make it as murky as possible.

>>4655383
Again, my opinion is changed on universal consciousness.

It is not regarding the von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics, the simulation argument, or Dualism.

>>4655378
>makes bizarre untestable claim
>"prove me wrong"

>device
>describe to me*
fixed, sorry

>>4655378

>the universe is a giant simulation and anything that happens is just part of the simulation by the way none of this is falsifiable so prove me wrong

Fuck science, this isn't doesn't even sound right from any standpoint.

I have a quick question, is this 'idea' only applicable to an exclusive area?
Let's say, for example, the LHC that failed to observe that neutrinos travel faster than light, then had their personnel observing the experiment replaced by idiots that believes that the neutrino can travel faster than light, is the neutrino going to travel faster than light? The whole experiment is placed only in an exclusive area (the room where the idiots are in) and it's uncontrolled-which means that we can't find force them to think that the neutrino is faster-than-light but rather we can 'induce' 'subtle hints' to them by asking them if the agree that neutrinos travel faster-than-light.

With this, I have some questions:
In summary, does our conscious efforts affects the wave function (forced into) or is it our unconscious that affects it (induced into, i.e. given subtle hints)?
If so, then our reality is just made up by our consciousness?
If the reality is made up by our consciousness, then would this prove that books like "The Secret" is true?
If so, are fucked up yet?

>>4655378
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You are a walking bank of fallacies.

>>4655384
>Please device me an experiment and describe to me possible coherent results of that experiment which might demonstrate that you are wrong.

There isn't any, that is the point. The argument reduces to Occam's Razor.

>For me - if there was good repeatable statistical evidence that someone has the power of telepathy, that would prove that I am wrong. If there was good repeatable statistical evidence that when everyone was happy then the next day it rained more, then that would prove I am wrong.

None of these have any relation or support to the von Neumann interpretation. Observation simply reduces the state vector, it does not modify other laws of physics.

>>4655391
So reiterate your current position then. Have I got this right?

>we're in teh matrix
>by concentrating real hard, we can affect teh matrix

The real question is: how did Neo electrocute the robot squids?

First of all, shame on OP for saying that such a correlational dataset "proves" anything.

Secondly, I'm skeptical that their low p-values are due to anything but confirmatory hypothesis testing in selecting events from the news based on observed z-scores. To do this PROPERLY, they would need to have a lot of people following the news in many different regions in order to get something that resembles a "complete" set of events that meet their "rigorously defined" criteria. That's a whole lot of news which would require a whole lot of people.

So, what kind of funding does this project get? Can they actually support having people following the news like this?

Moreover, have they used the correlational data they've been collecting to conduct any controlled experiments?

>>4655396
Why do so many physicists agree with the simulation hypothesis?

We have reformulated quantum field theory in terms of information painted on a background, Holography.

Everything is information, everything is quantized and digital.

How does this not sound like a simulation?

>>4655402
So we agree that you're merely stating an interpretation, not testable science, correct? Excellent. That means your claims are irrelevant to my claim of materialistic reductionism.

>>4655402
>There isn't any, that is the point.

So your experiment is not falsifiable.

Great, you've admitted that it is not science. Can the mods delete this thread now? It doesn't belong here.

Is this thread still here?

Don't feed the trolls, /sci/, don't do it!
This troll is a bullshitter troll. You are wasting your time and using up precious electrons to do so.

>>4655418
I am not trolling.

>>4655415
Dude... dude. The simulation hypothesis is fine. But it doesn't automatically suggest that we can affect the simulation from inside it.

Look, I'll devastate your little picture, shall I? In truth, we live in a simulation... where nobody's consciousness affects the output of RNGs. Mind-blowing!

Can you explain, in a straightforward way, why the idea of living in a simulation means we can affect it with our simulated minds? I dare you.

>>4655438
I thought not.

>>4655438
> where nobody's consciousness affects the output of RNGs. Mind-blowing!
That is fine. I already said I do not agree with that, as there is evidence against it.

>>4655438
I already showed you with consciousness causing state vector collapse. You can see the math a few posts up.

Look up the von Neumann interpretation of QM.

>>4655452
I went to eat dinner. My apologies.

>>4655456
You seriously think that state vector collapse is some kind of secret window into our simulation? By what means have you deduced that? The physics is part of the simulation, not something outside of it. Everything you see and hear and read and test and observe is part of the simulation. You can't conceive of that? What a fool.

Also - it's just lazy to tell people to look things up. If you can't argue your position then go to bed already.

>>4655473
>You seriously think that state vector collapse is some kind of secret window into our simulation? By what means have you deduced that? The physics is part of the simulation, not something outside of it. Everything you see and hear and read and test and observe is part of the simulation. You can't conceive of that? What a fool.
I don't think you can.

Have you even taken Quantum Mechanics? Stop trying to act like you know things when you really do not.

Do you know what Observation is?

Read this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402121v2.pdf

and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

>Also - it's just lazy to tell people to look things up
You shouldn't be participating if you don't have the knowledge or mental capacity to understand it.

Also - still waiting:
>Can you explain, in a straightforward way, why the idea of living in a simulation means we can affect it with our simulated minds? I dare you.

>>4655480
You didn't answer my question. If we're in a simulation, then the physics is part of it. Why do you think it demonstrates something special?

Answer me.

>>4655488
You don't seem to understand.

Quantum systems evolve according to an equation, called a Schrodinger equation.

When a CONSCIOUS OBSERVER acts on this quantum system, it collapses.

It will ONLY HAPPEN when a CONSCIOUS OBSERVER does it. Nothing else with collapse the wave function.

You didn't even read, and I suspect you're a pretentious underage b& who doesn't even know baby physics.

If you read the articles, you'd understand.

I'm going to bed.

I'll answer all other questions when I wake up.

>>4655496
I understand fine and have been arguing with you throughout this thread.

>Quantum systems evolve according to an equation, called a Schrodinger equation.
If we are in a simulation, everything you see and know including this is part of the simulation. Are you imagining it applies outside the simulation?

>When a CONSCIOUS OBSERVER acts on this quantum system, it collapses.
If we are in a simulation, conscious observers are simulated entities. We may well have subjective experience, but this arises as part of the simulation.

>It will ONLY HAPPEN when a CONSCIOUS OBSERVER does it. Nothing else with collapse the wave function.
This is all happening in a simulation, right?

>You didn't even read, and I suspect you're a pretentious underage b& who doesn't even know baby physics.
You insult me because you can't really explain your position in a coherent way. You desperately want QM to mean that we are Neo in the matrix, but it doesn't work that way, whether we are being simulated or not.

>If you read the articles, you'd understand.
I have read all the articles and understand just fine. If you had some kind of valid point, you'd have made it by now, but you just keep referring people to external links. Why does QM imply we are living in a simulation? Why does living in a simulation imply we can influence random number generators.

I'm waiting.

>>4655514
I have beat you. Good bye.

>It will ONLY HAPPEN when a CONSCIOUS OBSERVER does it. Nothing else with collapse the wave function.
Untestable drivel.

The likelihood that someone read this thread and was convinced by IQ fundie's arguments and GCP's data upsets me. A lot.

If you were convinced and are still reading this thread, just look at who's funding this garbage science:
http://www.noetic.org/research/overview/

We have no reason to believe that this data isn't fake.

Do people really consider this shit still? Really guys? Quantum Mysticism? You are the scum that is killing physics.

Interpreting the ramifications of science is not science. Do not call it that, do not associate it with science. Do not say that because something isn't observable it has to be this way because such and such philosophy says so.

I can see why so many people left /sci/ if this is the kind of people who occupy it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163

>>4655496
Extrapolating to “we literally create reality by out thoughts” is applying reductionism to an absurd level.

The observer effect isn't at all correlated to consciousness. It it derived from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It relates to the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles. Interesting stuff, but nothing to do with our self-awareness. As long as a particle is interacting with another particle, they'll both exist regardless of where you are or what you're doing.

I think part of the problem is the prevalent usage of the word "observer" when it's really the measurement or interference intruding at that scale that appears to collapse a wave function.
When you keep saying "observer" these religious fundies take that to mean that only an intelligent being can cause these things to happen, and then they run with that misunderstanding and end up in la la land.

>>4655614
Is it still a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics?

>>4655668
Quantum mysticism revolves around the catch-22 logic that you need a conscious observer monitoring the experiment to see what happens, and that the physics wouldn't work were there no one around to observe it. These people think that they understand all of quantum mechanics and how it works, yet they can't even get the science right.

I once debated with two or three of them after a talk. They are literally impossible to reason with. Same kind of people who eat mushrooms and talk about "quantum immortality", or whatever the hell that means.

>>4655697
I guess so, but it is largely deprecated among the scientific community.

Iv read this whole damn thread, and in my opinion iQ is a dumb fuck.

Not only are there gaps in your arguments, but about half way through you just started saying "go look up this" and completely lost almost all interest in trying to prove your point to us, which is a big ass red flag of what people in this thread have already been saying, you're a troll.

And, what your pretty much saying is everything we know is a lie, idk about you, but im stickin' with the shit that is helping the human civilization thrive and advance in both surviving and technology advancement, not with your "if you don't look at it, its in suspended animation" untestable bull fucking shit.

i don't follow why this has to mean reality is simulated. Or by simulated to you simply mean that physical reality we experience is just a construct of our shared interpretation of it?


Either way, does this mean that we can take the amount of variation recorded when a known number of people realize something simultaneously, and from that amount of variation and the number of people, extrapolate the total number of individual consciousnesses in the universe?

>>4655570
We have no reason to believe the majority of modern day data isn't fake because everyone's funded by people with political agendas.

From their references, quoted on the site:

>Global Resonance of Consciousness: Princess Diana and Mother Teresa

>Roger Nelson, Holger Boesch, Emil Boller, York Dobyns, Joop Houtkooper, Arnold Lettieri, Dean Radin, Linda Russek, Gary Schwartz, Jerry Wesch

>Nelson, Dobyns, and Lettieri are from Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey; Boesch and Boller are from the Institut fuer Grenzgebiete, Freiburg, Germany; Houtkooper is from the University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany; Radin is from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada; Schwartz and Russek are from the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Wesch is from Health Psychology Consultation, Chicago, Illinois.

The punchline:
>The Electronic Journal of Parapsychology, eJAP . (1998)

Very serious business...

>>4655525
>If we are in a simulation, everything you see and know including this is part of the simulation. Are you imagining it applies outside the simulation?
No.

>If we are in a simulation, conscious observers are simulated entities. We may well have subjective experience, but this arises as part of the simulation.
Exactly. But consciousness controls the simulation. Matter is only simulated when a conscious observer observes it.

>This is all happening in a simulation, right?
Yes.

>You desperately want QM to mean that we are Neo in the matrix, but it doesn't work that way, whether we are being simulated or not.
I am using QM to support Dualism.

>>4655529
No, you have not.

>>4655570
I do not support that data any more. I did not even start this thread.

>>4655614
You are simply ignorant.

>is applying reductionism to an absurd level.
Exactly. It is so simple because of this. Occam's razor.

>>4655668
This isn't at all religious, nor does it imply free will/telepathy/other pseudoscience bullshit. It just means that consciousness isn't physical. It is still part of the simulation, but it is processed differently.

>>4655731
You are simply too ignorant to read. If you understood what was being said, you wouldn't have to look something up, would you?

>>4655811
It doesn't. It's an interpretation that makes sense because of Occam's razor.

IQ Fundie and Scientist in the same thread.

Intradesting

>>4656980
You are not contributing to the discussion.

>>4656982
and?

>>4656980
Well he's not the real IQ fundie, while of course I have to say that he's doing quite a good job.

>>4656988
Please keep the topic centered around the discussion of Dualism and the simulation hypothesis instead of metaposting.

>>4656997
You are not me. Please leave.

>>4657003
Of course I'm not you. I'm the real IQ fundie. Not here though to stop you. Please continue. Thread looks good.

Imagine if we discovered hacks.

what if we create a simulation and so it's like a simulation in a simulation and the simulation that holds our universe is the simulation of another higher simulation.

simulations in simulations in simulations in simulations

>>4657001
why?

>>4657026
That is the point.

We exist in a closed timelike loop of simulated universes. The simulations simulate other simulations to ad infinitum, and eventually simulate themselves.

There is no real universe, they are all simulated.

Oh wow how autistic are you?

>>4657042


IQ fundie, your full of shit and you believe stupi hippie new age quantum mysticism crap. please, die fast.

>>4657541

>quantum
>mysticism

TFW...

Getting so pissed off by this qualia crap.

I observe the electron as a wavefunction indirectly by looking at the photofilm.

I observe the electron, alswo indirectly, by flooding the little em-affectable electrons with lots of electromagnetic radiation, just enough to OBSERVE them. This CAUSES the electron to behave differently than when I'm NOT flooding the electrons with EM light.
Learn some physics please.

>>4654532
It's really simple. Only Americans are trully conscious.

The rest are just part of the simulation.

Don't certain emotions resonate at different frequencies? Maybe a collective of the frequency has an effect on the outcomes of these tests. It may all be connected via frequencies.

>>4657690
go watch What the freck do we know and take the discussion to /x/

>>4657069
I am not autistic. You clearly are.

>>4657541
>stupi hippie new age quantum mysticism crap
This is not "stupid". It is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics, and wins due to Occam's Razor. Prove it wrong. You go die.

>>4657663
Please read the thread.

>>4657670
This is incorrect. The wave function does not collapse until you personally observe the electron. The photon modifies the electron's possible eigenstates, but state vector reduction does not occur until observation.

See this:
>>4655322
and this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

>>4657675
Please stop trolling and leave my thread.

>>4657690
No. The information in the OP is statistically incorrect and pseudoscientific. It has been proven incorrect already in this thread. Dualism and the simulation hypothesis has not been refuted, and wins over other interpretations because of Occam's razor.

>>4657691
This is not quantum mysticism. This is Dualism + the simulation hypothesis. Please leave.

>>4657697

>and wins due to Occam's Razor

AHAAHAHAHA

No. Dualist interpretations are ruled out by Occam, since they propose unnecessary thing (dualist mind), in addition to matter. Other interpretations work with only matter.

>>4657721
No.

If the wave function is collapsed by conscious observation, equations of motion are not required on matter that isn't being observed. This would equate to the universe being simulated in a suspended animation-like fashion, which is much simpler than the requirement of time evolution on every particle, infinite parallel universes, wave function collapse by pure coincidence, etc. Conscious observers are like the AI in a game which evolves according to the AI's actions.

>>4657732
How does this support evolution?

>>4657744
It is fully compatible with evolution. This isn't pseudoscience or quantum mysticism. It's dualism with the von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Since this is a simulation, the necessary parameters required for life are set before the universe is simulated. Because the simulation is entirely deterministic, all conscious observers who will ever be conscious inside the simulation are inserted before abiogenesis even occurs.

>>4657732

You dont even understand what Occam Razor is about. Its not about computational complexity at all. Its only about the number of postulates.

Simulation hypothesis is also ruled out by Occam Razor, since simpler theory is that universe is actually real, than that it only appears real, but is simulated.

Dualist mind + matter vs. only matter. Non-dualist theories win.

>>4657755

Who sets the simulation? Another superflous entity?

>>4657755
Who is simulating the simulation then?

>>4657769
I already stated how this occurs. It is a temporal paradox. The universe is simulating itself.

All possible universes exist on a closed timelike geodesic. A universe simulates another, which simulates another, to ad infinitum, eventually simulating itself recursively.

>>4657777

Another proposal superflous by Occam. Far simpler hypothesis is that universe is just actually real, than that it is simulated.

What do you even mean by the word? If universe is simulating itself then it just exists, its not a simulation.

>>4657785
> If universe is simulating itself then it just exists
This is a very distinct concept to existence.

I advise you read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

>Another proposal superflous by Occam. Far simpler hypothesis is that universe is just actually real, than that it is simulated.
If we assume the universe is real, we assume conditions which require enormous computational capacities. Energy and matter are information, therefore it can be implied that in order to rearrange information, it must be computed under some sort of method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

If the universe were "real", how would you explain it's existence without breaking causality? This interpretation maintains causality by exploiting a feature of general relativity which is possible in Lorentz spaces.

>>4657796

Strange loop universe (or self-simulation) does not imply dualism in any way.

>>4657820
Yes it does. Dualism falls under Occam's razor as the universe is easier to simulate with distinctive AI in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project#Criticism

The experiment is being run by crackpots.

>>4657849

You dont know what Occams Razor is. Its NOT about computational complexity.

Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. It says the less assumptions are there, the better. More complex evolutionary theory is preferable to less complex creation by god, because it has one less unproven assumption.

A hypothesis that results in immensely hardly computable universe is preferable to hypothesis that results in computationally simpler universe, but requires more unproven postulates.

Occams Razor is only about the number of postulates, not computational complexity.

>as the universe is easier to simulate with distinctive AI in the universe

Why?

>>4657898
We know. This is old news. Read the thread.

>>4657910
>You dont know what Occams Razor is. Its NOT about computational complexity.
Occam's Razor is choosing the simplest solution to a problem. It involves complexity.

> After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. It says the less assumptions are there, the better. More complex evolutionary theory is preferable to less complex creation by god, because it has one less unproven assumption.
This is irrelevant. This is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It involves all existing physical laws, and no new ones. Cool strawman.

>A hypothesis that results in immensely hardly computable universe is preferable to hypothesis that results in computationally simpler universe, but requires more unproven postulates.
There aren't any increase in unproven postulates. There are more in the MWI, Bohmian, and Copenhagen interpretations. This assumes nothing more than a single closed timelike geodesic and time evolution of the universe. Some civilization will eventually simulate another one.

>Occams Razor is only about the number of postulates, not computational complexity.
A reduction in the number of postulates is equivalent to a less complex system. Cool circular logic. For example, evolution is simpler than the requirement of a God, as how did this God come about into existence? How did this God create man? What about all of the holes creationism has in the clear evidence of evolution? There aren't any holes in the simulation hypothesis.

>Why?
Again, if you know the von Neumann interpretation, the state vector does not collapse until conscious observation. This leaves all matter in a state of suspended animation until observed.

>>4658085

>Occam's Razor is choosing the simplest solution to a problem. It involves complexity.

No. Occams Razor does not prefer "simplest" solutions. It prefers solutions with the least number of unproven postulates, even if it turns out to be immensely complex.

>This is irrelevant. This is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It involves all existing physical laws, and no new ones. Cool strawman.

Every interpretation of QM (maybe except for "shut up and calculate" approach) by definition involves some unproven postulates. But yours involves more of them than other interpretations. Particularly, the dualist postulate, which is not required in MWI, Bohmian, and Copenhagen interpretations.

>A reduction in the number of postulates is equivalent to a less complex system.

Not necessarily less computationaly complex. There are systems with large number of postulates that are computationally simple (a strategy game comes to mind), and systems with relatively small numbers of postulates that result in systems computationally very intensive, or even infinite in complexity (fractals, general relativity, quantum chromodynamics).

>This assumes nothing more than a single closed timelike geodesic and time evolution of the universe.

No, it also assumes dualism of the human mind, in addition.

>There aren't any holes in the simulation hypothesis.

There are - if it is impossible for a civilisation to realistically achieve processing power to simulate daughter universes to the level required to enable recursive simulations, then it would not be possible.

The postulate that it is possible, and that we are not the first universe even if it was, is another additional unproven hypothesis.

>>4658173
>It prefers solutions with the least number of unproven postulates, even if it turns out to be immensely complex.
This is the general case, every time it is generally the simplest solution. Again, the von Neumann interpretation assumes nothing more but Dualism.

homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/occam.pdf

> But yours involves more of them than other interpretations.
No. There isn't a requirement for parallel universes or wave function collapse. Both are replaced with Dualism. This isn't mine, it is von Neumann's.

>Not necessarily less computationaly complex. There are systems with large number of postulates that are computationally simple (a strategy game comes to mind), and systems with relatively small numbers of postulates that result in systems computationally very intensive, or even infinite in complexity (fractals, general relativity, quantum chromodynamics).
http://research.cs.queensu.ca/home/xiao/doc/complexity.pdf
How exactly is GTR infinite in complexity?

>There are - if it is impossible for a civilisation to realistically achieve processing power to simulate daughter universes to the level required to enable recursive simulations, then it would not be possible.
I don't think you know what a multi-qubit quantum computer is.

>>4658219
>>4658219

>There isn't a requirement for parallel universes or wave function collapse. Both are replaced with Dualism. This isn't mine, it is von Neumann's.

This is blatantly incorrect. Collapse is still there, it is only caused by conscious observation. Wavefunctions collapse in Neumann interpretation.
de Broglie Bohm is an example of an interpretation that does not assume wavefunction collapse or multiple universes (and it also does not require dualism).

>How exactly is GTR infinite in complexity?

Not infinitely, but more complex than systems with far more postulates, for example a strategy game.

>I don't think you know what a multi-qubit quantum computer is.

A computer able to solve specific problems better, while being inefficient compared to classical computers in other tasks. Why do you think quantum computers would allow us to simulate whole *quantum* universes of equal complexity? They do not.

>>4658299
>This is blatantly incorrect. Collapse is still there, it is only caused by conscious observation. Wavefunctions collapse in Neumann interpretation.
It provides a method of explaining state vector reduction. Please stop with your Bohm bullshit. You did this in my last other two threads.

>Why do you think quantum computers would allow us to simulate whole *quantum* universes of equal complexity? They do not.
You still do not understand what a quantum computer is. Do you even know what a Bloch Sphere‎ is, or how qubits work? Do you even know how a Yang-Mills theory would be simulated perturbatively? I feel like I am talking to someone with immense amounts of pseudoknowledge. I am not writing up a 20 page paper for a troll when there is information available on the internet, but you're too ignorant to look it up. Look up Wolfram's papers, for example.

>inb4 faulty argument because I am not explaining anything

>>4658299
>Not infinitely, but more complex than systems with far more postulates, for example a strategy game.
I still do not understand how a field equation describing time evolution of a test particle on a geodesic on a manifold is complex. GTR has an immense number of postulates. You need all of differential geometry, the Poincare group, consistency of light propagating in the vacuum, etc. Far more than a strategy game.

>233 posts and 16 image replies omitted.

>>4658369

>It provides a method of explaining state vector reduction.

Which is inferior to other explanations from the Occams Razor perspective, since it requires additional unfounded assumptions, such as fucking mind dualism (and validity of the simulation hypothesis case of your theory).

>You still do not understand what a quantum computer is.

Quantum computer cannot simulate a quantum system that is more complex than itself in real time. Hence you will never be able to loop the simulations so that universes simulate themselves. A civilisation in the universe would always be able to simulate only simpler universes, not equal or more complex. Cannot loop.

Anyway, back to the topic - you original argument was that Neumann interpretation is not only possible, but somehow preffered by Occams Razor above all others. That is not true.

>>4658421
>Which is inferior to other explanations from the Occams Razor perspective, since it requires additional unfounded assumptions, such as fucking mind dualism (and validity of the simulation hypothesis case of your theory).
There is nothing wrong with Dualism. See the other thread. Qualia are unphysical, and an explanation of them is required for understanding consciousness. This explains consciousness as AI within a simulation.

It requires less assumptions, as time evolution does not occur unless conscious observation is taking place.

>Quantum computer cannot simulate a quantum system that is more complex than itself in real time
It provides a means of superposition of states. You've never heard of Digital physics? The system can be the size of our universe, it may be simulated at a different rate of time than which we perceive. This entire concept is based on the singularity and this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

>A civilisation in the universe would always be able to simulate only simpler universes, not equal or more complex.
Wrong. Look up the universal turning machine.

>Cannot loop.
Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

>Anyway, back to the topic - you original argument was that Neumann interpretation is not only possible, but somehow preffered by Occams Razor above all others. That is not true.
Explain consciousness with just physical laws, and justify yourself with empirical evidence. Any physicalism interpretation falls to Occam's Razor.
---
As a sidenote, this is a layman's interpretation of everything here:
http://www.nesteduniverse.net/2007/12/are-you-living.html#.T6g8mutSSAh

Question!
what public events did they took into account?
if you have 20 random number generators and 20 important events in a year(Christmas, USA president election, shocking mass murder etc...) and you pick only 3 events and only a random number generator for each one showing a weird wave alteration at the time of the events you'll end up with "boosted" stats and fail horribly at providing real proof.
reading some links i noticed they show how not emotional events( for example technical inspections in the university) provides poor correlation while spiritual meeting gives strong "signal".it isn't clear for me... are they trying to measure the effect of events that happens near the random number generator? did they perform spiritual meeting/praying in the same building the quantum number g. was running? or they just showed the spiritual meeting attendants the datas after the meeting "linking theyr consciousness to the data outcome"?
can you explain mathematically how the fuction that transform an array of 1000 bits into " a value that can be correlated with events" looks like? i doubt they are counting how many 0 and 1 are in and when someone is praying they have 400 0s and 600 1s instead of 500-500.
and no, i don't want to read 200 pages of articles and publications, tell me the exact page/chapter and i will read it.

>>4658535
It is bullshit pseudoscience. Read the thread.

They modified the statistics data, and it is heavily criticized.

Dualism is some interesting stuff

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2913/

>>4658545
just as expected.
but the main idea was cool.
i won't read the thread. is too long.