The Role of Consciousness in Quantum Phenomena

>no video evidence
You told me there was evidence OP. You lied.

Haven't watched the vid yet, but will do it later.

Meanwhile, there's something I want you to remember.
The whole quantum theory is historically based on Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" (just read Bohr's or Heisenberg's biographies). The very idea of this kind of thinking is that "everything you are able to find out about an object are things you have put into the object yourself" - That means, while you can't percife anything of the object itself, it kind of mirrors the structures of your perception.
Quantum Theories are meant the same way. No proposition made in the context Quantum Theories is meant to be a proposition about the object (for example an elemental particle) itself. It is always a proposition about the system and the relationship of the observed object/s and the observer, because the observer always influences the observed object/s through the act of observing.

Alright OP,
I haven't watched the video yet, but I have some predictions.

If I hear ANY mention of the observation of the interference patterns directly at the slit
I'm dropping this shit in the trash.

If you can't set up a double slit experiment, have people sit next to it with their eyes closed and think about what the plank'll look like at the end, and then when you turn the thing on it looks like what they said, then this experiment is worthless.

>set up double slit experiment
>fetch data of interference pattern without observation at slits
>sit meditators down and make them concentrate on the slit, give them feedback if they make the interference pattern collapse slightly
>the mental work actually has an effect
>fetch data over a few years
>significant results
>wtf?
>let other labs reproduce work now

forgot to mention: whole experiment was closed off, no way to look inside

Show me the Effective Consciousness term in the diffraction pattern equation for the double-slit experiment

thanks.
Sounds interesting, but they probably just have a biased way to interpret the data. Will look into it

There's no video evidence either. This can easily be a fraud with made up data since there is no way to analyze it.

>PS watch the full video before shit talking it.
Blow me.
"Hey guise, here's this total pop-sci thing I want you to spend 40 minutes watching".
Tell ya what OP: come over and spend 40 minutes mowing my lawn, and I'll watch yer video.

>I went in very critical
No, you didn't.
I'm very critical, and there's no way I'd watch a 4 minute video on this.
If you've got an idea that will overturn 90 years of QM, at least give a summary for fuck's sake.

nice contribution

>ignores video and entire thread
>acts like a know-it-all

you must have a lot of friends

t. highschool burnouts

>ignore the posts stating there is no evidence
>just keeps shitposting as if this he's proven something

you must have lost your way

its pseudoscientific bullshit

dont waste your time watching nonsense like that you dumbasses

> ad hominem
> attacking presupposed social status on anonymous imageboard

The user you posted to may be a grump, but that doesn't mean he's completely wrong. But if you feel the need to act this way, there's always
or the dudeweedlmao thread that's open here

I've read his paper on this a couple of weeks ago and his methodology is correct, but I have my doubts about the legitimacy of what Dean Radin does. I've analyzed his previous work earlier and I found numerous faults with his methodology, particularly in his books.
It would be interesting to see how other people would interpret the results of doing this experiment, but I have a feeling Dean Radin is a scam.

The double-slit experiment and the observer effect are interesting on their own, I don't think attributing humans having an effect on the path is necessary as an addition to it.

people like radin will always find what they want regardless. they are delusional and are driven by wonderment and fantasy.

forgot to add this.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

>PS watch the full video before shit talking it. I went in very critical and now I'm not sure how I feel anymore.

Realize sooner rather than later that Veeky Forums is full of the worst undergrad sperglord autists you can possibly imagine, who would rather circlejerk in IQ and "superior fields" threads than to actually have interesting discussions.

+

And some Veeky Forums denizens aren't fond of being guilt-tripped into watching videos on subjects that could be adequately explained using written material.

our current understanding of the universe is not complete, thus are our equations only approximations of the real underlying physics of the universe.

they released their data and also want other labs to do the experiments by themselves.

True, I find him particularly dangerous as he is obviously skilled at both writing and presenting material in a way that is hard to refute. His earlier works seem genuine at first but there are statistical errors in most of his works, he seems to evolved further and now presents his material in a purely scientific material, it's very hard to dispute him without a different lab performing the same result. Only problem is that obviously his area is wildly considered to be pseudo-science and thus nobody is actually going to fund a study to disprove a fraud. Most likely he just reported the results of this paper to fit his narrative.

This appeal to masses is problematic for several reasons, see
He knows nobody is going to do the study, and if somebody does he would refute the result (if contradictory) as just being one lab, basically turning the argument against himself on them.

Also sorry for my bad English but I have been interested in exposing this fraud for a long time.

>people still think the double slit is the only big experiment in quantum physics
When will this meme end?

When people understand that it doesn't matter if the "observer" is conscious or not.

He's right tho

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noetic_science

roko's basilisk

>roko's basilisk
technocratic version of skydaddy. literally more retarded than religion.

Only reason "spiritual people" care so much about this is because some physicists once claimed that the measurement only happens when a conscious being "reads" the measurement from the detector.

Jesus, I watched this whe thing the other day and was in a mad rage by the end.

None of it is real. First off, the dudes programmer fundamentally fucked up the code, and the dude jokes about it. When you are trying to prove some mad theory, DONT MAKE FUCKING MISTAKES.

SECONDLY, if you are actually proving something, show some fucking math to back your data up.

This is the exact same shit as the whole "free energy" and "global consciousness" ideas.

And I'm pretty sure in quantum physics, the observer doesn't require consciousness and is usually the equipment used to measure the data being measured..... Aka observe the data. And the wave function collapses once the observation is made. Aka we know, probabilistically, that it will land somewhere here. But we can't be for sure until we observe where it lands.

But who am I?

That's the thing - it doesn't matter if the thing doing the observing is conscious or not, in fact, in all these double slit experiments, it's a machine taking the measurement. It's the ACT of measuring that breaks the wave, because you have to collapse the wave to get a particle. There's no way to isolate a particle in a wave without collapsing the wave, as there's no more fundamental particle for which to measure with. It's like trying to measure the surface of a balloon with a needle.

Unless, of course, you cheat:
phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

OK, now i watched the vid, and I have to say, I'm really disappointed. (I didn't know the guy in the vid before, and I didn't know what he was doing).

I'm disappointed because there are indeed questions about the role of the observer in quantum theories. If you put those questions short, they are "are there quantum phenomenae without an observer?".
But this vid was not about any of these questions. Indeed it used those questions to "smuggle in" something completely different.

This vid is indeed about telepathy, that means, the ability to inluence physical phenomenae with your mind and to do it over a certain distance. Those guys "influencing" the experiment weren't even observers of the experiment - they were just guys meditating to influence the output of the experiment, which means, they tried to influence it via telepathy.
It didn't have anything to do with quantum phenomany at all.

I mean, telepathy might be an interesting topic, and who am I to judge if something like telepathy exists...
but it has nothing to do with quantum phenomenae or quantum theories. It's another topic and belongs to /x/ right now.

We don't know if something like telepathy exists but there's strong evidence against the case of telepathy as preached among occult groups, new age movements, pseudo-sciences.

>If you put those questions short, they are "are there quantum phenomenae without an observer?".
That's not a question we don't know the answer to.

The odd thing about the double slit experiment is that you get a wave pattern, eventually, whether or not you collapse the wave by measuring it first.

But the wave collapses when measured, whether done by man or machine. For there to be any energy and force interaction at all, throughout the universe, waves have to collapse when unobserved. For your computer to work, waves have to collapse when you ain't lookin.

But how do you define an "act of measurment"? Wouldn't the thing getting hit by particles & recording where they land be considered a measurement machine too?