Atheistforums.com

Science Section => Science General Discussion => Physics & Cosmology => Topic started by: Solitary on May 02, 2014, 12:27:10 PM

Title: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Solitary on May 02, 2014, 12:27:10 PM
Quantum fields are not the "field of energy" that you will often  see referred to in popular literature as the reality with which quantum mechanics has replaced "material reality." Fields of energy are fields of matter because energy and matter are equivalent.

Applying Platonic metaphysics to quantum mechanics, the wave function, a type of quantum fields, is "real" and so its simultaneous "collapse" throughout the universe grossly violates relativity.

The wave function is simply a human-invented mathematical object that can do anything its inventors want it to do, so long as any calculations made using it agree with data. A wave function or quantum field is never observed, or even a classical electromagnetic field. (note) Iron particles in the field are not observing the field itself!)

All that detectors ever register are localized hits that look very much like particles. Furthermore, the empirical fact remains that no information or object has ever been observed to travel faster than the speed of light as claimed. To be continued. Solitary   

John Bell  proved a remarkable theorem that showed how empirically distinguished between conventional quantum mechanics and any theory of local hidden variables. However, the "EPR" experiment ruled out any "local" hidden variables for ever. Subsequent independent experiments have confirmed this result!                                                                                                     
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 02, 2014, 01:16:31 PM
Good post. I was going to bring this up on the origianal Casparov "I believe" thread, but her pretty much blew off anything he didn't agree with.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 02, 2014, 06:05:00 PM
I am moderating the discussion and I am holding back a lot because, as it stands, I'm not the debater.
What I can address are violations of form, such as logical fallacies.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 02, 2014, 06:09:25 PM
I am moderating the discussion and I am holding back a lot because, as it stands, I'm not the debater.
What I can address are violations of form, such as logical fallacies.
Afterward, I would really like to hear your comments.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 02, 2014, 06:14:05 PM
"afterward"?
Well, that may be a while :)
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 02, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
I did post a response in that thread if you are interested
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: aitm on May 02, 2014, 09:50:30 PM
I did post a response in that thread if you are interested
I think you are doing a splendid job. I am impressed, but then again, I like wet toilet seats.......
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 02, 2014, 10:05:14 PM
So do I, if said wetness is coming from a disinfecting wipe :)
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 03, 2014, 07:16:39 AM
For what it's worth, I think you're doing a bang-up job calling out Casperov on his slippery and dishonest tactics. I'm commenting from the peanut gallery because I'm bored and irritated.

There. I said it. Casparov irritates me. He irritates me like Navi — "Hey! Listen! Hey! Listen!"
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 03, 2014, 11:31:36 AM
He irritates me like Navi — "Hey! Listen! Hey! Listen!"
He irritates me like the Na'Vi. "We're perfect because we don't believe in any of your materialist science." Bleck.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 03:30:16 AM
It was Einstein who first set up a standard to prove this. Einstein was so convinced that Realism was true, he concluded that Quantum Mechanics must be faulty. His biggest complaint was that QM seems to violate Locality, or “The Principle of Local Action.” Realism does not allow the possibility of “spooky action at a distance” as Einstein called it:

Quote
For the relative independence of spatially distant things (A and B), this idea is characteristic: an influence on A has no immediate effect on B; this is known as the “principle of local action”. - Einstein, Albert (1948). "Quanten-Mechanik Und Wirklichkeit" [Quantum Mechanics and Reality].

Which is corroborated by Newton’s conception of reality as well:

Quote
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact… so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.  —Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3

And so what is known as the famous EPR paper was born. http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf (http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)

Written in 1935, it assumes in it’s very first paragraph that we operate in an objective reality, and pointing out that QM seems to violate “The Principle of Locality,” concluded that Quantum Mechanics was necessarily incomplete, rather than that we do not in fact operate in an objective reality. For Einstein and his collaborators, if it was between Realism and Quantum Mechanics, they picked Realism. So deeply rooted is the assumption of Realism in the minds of men.

Then came John Bell in 1964 with his paper titled, “On The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf (http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf)

Bell proposed that either Einstein was correct and QM was incomplete and Locality was not actually being violated, or Einstein was wrong and QM was right, but locality is not a true principle of our world. His proposition was that if Einstein was right and QM was wrong, then there must be “Hidden Variables” not described by QM that are causing the apparent interaction at a distance. With Bell’s Theorem, it became possible to experimentally test whether or not Local Realism was actually being violated. If all of the “Hidden Variables” were eliminated as possible explanations of the “spooky action at a distance” then we would have conclusive proof that Local Realism is false.

Since his proposal, several dozen experiments have been performed to test Bell’s Inequalities. These include: Holt and Pipkin (1973), Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig (1976), Freedman and Clauser (1976), Fry and Thompson (1976), Kasday-Ullman-Wu, Faraci-Gutkowski-Notarigo-Pennisi, Wilson-Lowe-Butt, Bruno-d’Agostino-Maroni, Aspect-Grangier-Roger (1982), Aspect-Dalibard-Roger (1982), Shih and Alley, Ou and Mandel, Rarity and Tapster, Zeilinger (1999), Go (2003) and more. All of which confirmed that Quantum Mechanics was not incomplete as Einstein had suggested, and because Bell’s Inequalities are violated, Local Realism is false.

In 2003 A. J. Leggett wrote a paper titled, “Nonlocal Hidden-Variable Theories and Quantum Mechanics: An Incompatibility Theorem.” http://people.isy.liu.se/icg/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Leggett2003.pdf (http://people.isy.liu.se/icg/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Leggett2003.pdf) In the opening paragraph he states:

Quote
Bell’s celebrated theorem states that, in a situation like that considered by Einstein et al., which involves the correlation of measurements on two spatially separated systems which have interacted in the past, no local hidden-variable theory (or more generally, no objective local theory) can predict experimental results identical to those given by standard quantum mechanics. Over the past thirty years a very large number of experiments have been conducted with the aim of testing the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of local hidden-variable theories, and while to the best of my knowledge no single existing experiment has simultaneously blocked all of the so-called “loopholes” (detector efficiency, random choice of setting, etc.) each one of those loopholes has been blocked in at least one experiment (cf., e.g., Weihs et al.). Thus, to maintain a local hidden-variable theory in the face of existing experiments would appear to require belief in a very peculiar conspiracy of nature. - A. G. Leggett

In the very same paper, Leggett went on to describe his own “Inequalities”, this time of the non-local variety. Bell set out to test for Local Hidden-Variables, whereas Leggett set out to test Non-Local Hidden-variables. In other words, if Bell’s Inequality was violated this would rule out “Local Realism”, and if Leggett’s Inequality was violated this would rule out “Non-Local Realism.” If both were violated this would rule out Realism altogether.

In his paper, Leggett describes the purpose behind this in the paragraph:

Quote
The reader might well ask why the whole subject of non-local hidden-variable theories is of any interest. In my view, the point of considering such theories is not so much that they are in themselves a particularly plausible picture of physical reality, but that by investigating their consequences one may attain a deeper insight into the nature of the quantum mechanical “weirdness” which Bell’s Theorem exposes. In particular, I believe that the results of the present investigation provide quantitative backing for a point of view which I believe is by now certainly well accepted at the qualitative level, namely that the incompatibility of the predictions of objective local theories with those of quantum mechanics has relatively little to do with locality and much to do with objectivity. - A. G. Leggett

In essence, Bell set out to disprove Locality as a necessary aspect of objective reality, and thus disproving Local Realism but leaving Non-Local Realism in it’s place, while Leggett set out to go a step further and disprove objectivity itself, ruling out both Local and Non-Local Realism altogether. Realism being that reality is objective and mind-independent, and Idealism committed to reality being subjective and mind-dependent, if Idealism is true we can predict that both Bell’s and Leggett’s hidden-variables will not suffice to keep Realism afloat.

The experiment was successfully completed in 2007 by Anton Zeilinger and his team and described in his paper titled, “An Experimental Test of Non-Local Realism”. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf)

The following is the complete abstract of that paper. Please read it carefully keeping in mind the above information which lead up to this experiment:

Quote
Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.

Just as Idealism predicts, it is not just Locality, but Realism itself that should be abandoned. I highly encourage all readers of this post to read this paper in particular as it does a wonderful job of describing the situation in an accessible way. Here are some highlights from the paper:

Quote
Bell’s Theorem proves that all hidden-variable theories based on the joint assumption of locality and realism are at variance with the predictions of quantum physics. Locality prohibits any influences between events in space-like separated regions, while realism claims that all measurement outcomes depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement. The more refined versions of Bell’s theorem by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt and by Clauser and Horne start from the assumptions of local realism and result in inequalities for a set of statistical correlations (expectation values), which must be satisfied by all local realistic hidden-variable theories. The inequalities are violated by quantum mechanical predictions. Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger showed that already perfect correlations of systems with at least three particles are inconsistent with these assumptions. So far, all experiments motivated by these theorems are in full agreement with quantum predictions.... Therefore it is reasonable to consider the violation of local realism a well established fact.

Quote
The logical conclusion one can draw from the violation of local realism is that at least one of it’s assumptions fails. Specifically, either locality or realism or both cannot provide a foundational basis for quantum theory.... It is therefore important to ask whether incompatibility theorems similar to Bell’s can be found in which at least one of these concepts is relaxed. Our work addresses a broad class of non-local hidden-variable theories that are based on a very plausible type of realism and that provide an explanation for all existing Bell-type experiments. Nevertheless we demonstrate, both in theory and experiment, their conflict with quantum predictions and observed measurement data. Following the recent approach of Leggett, who introduced the class of non-local models and formulated an incompatibility theorem, we have analysed its assumptions and derived an inequality valid for such theories that can be experimentally tested. In addition, the experiments allow for a simultaneous test of all local hidden-variable models - that is, the measurement data can neither be explained by a local realistic model nor by the considered class of non-local models.

Quote
The theories are based on the following assumptions: (1) all measurement outcomes are determined by pre-existing properties of particles independent of the measurement (realism);....Nevertheless, we will show that all models based on assumptions (1)-(3) are at variance with other quantum predictions.

Quote
We believe that our results lend strong support to the view that any future extension of quantum theory that is in agreement with experiments must abandon certain features of realistic descriptions.

Realism is the assumption that physical reality exists independent of observation. The violation of Bell’s Inequalities ruled out Local Realism, and the violation of Leggett’s Inequalities ruled out Non-Local Realism, therefore Realism in any form has been conclusively ruled out.

The completion of this experiment and it’s conclusions are predicted by an Idealist Model of reality which is committed to observation-dependence and the falsity of all conceptions of Realism. After this paper was released, it spawned two very important articles. One in Nature titled “Physicists bid farewell to reality?” http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html), and the other in Physics World titled, “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality) Both released in 2007 immediately following the publication of the paper described and quoted above. I highly recommend reading both articles.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 04, 2014, 07:19:12 AM
Don't carbon-copy your tired dreck over here. I've read both of your articles. They do not say that the things we see around us aren't real. The "realism" meant here are hidden variables theories. Bell's Inequalities are geared specifically to detect the difference between hidden variable theories and standard quantum mechanics. Same with Leggett’s Inequalities. I read up on both of them. Violation of those inequalities just mean that quantum superposition is real — that quantum particles don't have a definite spin when unobserved. That does not mean that the particles themselves aren't real or follow definite laws of interaction.

I mean, for fuck's sake, Leggett even explicitly says that what they're talking about are hidden-variable theories in the first paragraph you quoted.

You are invited to go jump off a tall cliff.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Jason78 on May 04, 2014, 07:43:19 AM
Realism is the assumption that physical reality exists independent of observation. The violation of Bell’s Inequalities ruled out Local Realism, and the violation of Leggett’s Inequalities ruled out Non-Local Realism, therefore Realism in any form has been conclusively ruled out.

You started out assuming classical idealism was true, and look at the conclusion you've arrived at!  With almost no relevant data or logical argument in between!
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 04, 2014, 09:08:42 AM
For those interested in Bell's theorem and the EPR, I have a series of blogs on this;

Three Degrees of Spookiness in Entanglement (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2009/06/quantum-entanglement-there-are-three.html)

Quantum Entanglement Demystified (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2010/08/qe-demystified.html)

Spooky Action at a Distance and Bell's Theorem Revisited (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/spooky-action-at-distance-and-bells.html)

Description of Reality - The EPR Paper Revisited (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/10/description-of-reality-part-i-epr-paper.html)
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 04, 2014, 11:14:18 AM
Thanks for the links, JP. I still think that English is not Casparov's first language.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 01:06:10 PM
The "realism" meant here are hidden variables theories.

And what is the "Realism" meant here:

Quote
Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs.

A Hidden-Variable theory is just a theory that says "Realism still holds, it only seems like it doesn't because there are hidden-variables that we can't detect that are causing the weirdness." And Bell's and Leggett's hidden-variable theories have both been ruled out, meaning that Realism does not hold, there are no hidden-variables that leave Realism intact. There is no possible way that Realism survives this, it's only a matter of time and you are all fooling yourselves if you keep your head in the sand and think that somehow an external reality exists independent of observation. Realism is a dead ideology walking.

And remember what Realism means according to the peer reviewed scientific papers:

Quote
'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation.

Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 04, 2014, 01:15:44 PM
Thanks again Joseph!  However, Casper is correct? Einstein showed there are no simultaneous events to every observer---so right off the bat the experiment is flawed. Solitary

Casper who?

On a more serious note: in the famous EPR paper, Einstein fell into a false dichotomy: either the events were simultaneous or there is a spooky action at a distance. Of course he argued the former would go against SR, therefore the second was his conclusion that QM is incomplete. However, the either/or choice presented in the EPR paper shows a profound misunderstanding between classical logic and quantum logic.

Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 04, 2014, 03:42:10 PM
And what is the "Realism" meant here:
Quote
Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs.
More of your quote mining malarky! You can't even read a book written by a scientist for mass-consumption by the general public without reading into it. You have no hope at all of deciphering an actual peer reviewed paper, written by scientists for scientists. The statement you cite here comes in an abstract — a scientific come-on written to attract the eyes of scientists who already know about the controversy and wish to see what Zeilinger had to say about it. The paper body would go into detail about what that means so that everyone is on the same page.

Sorry, bub, but I happen to understand what the entire EPR controversy is actually arguing about. It has fuck-all to do with the wide definition of realism you want it to be. The Bell inequalities concerned only the polarizations of particles in singleton entanglements, much the same with Leggett's inequalities. Yes, you have to lose polarization/spin and a few other attributes as inherent qualities of quantum particles. That does not mean you have to lose all of philosophical realism.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 05:12:37 PM
More of your quote mining malarky! You can't even read a book written by a scientist for mass-consumption by the general public without reading into it. You have no hope at all of deciphering an actual peer reviewed paper, written by scientists for scientists. The statement you cite here comes in an abstract — a scientific come-on written to attract the eyes of scientists who already know about the controversy and wish to see what Zeilinger had to say about it. The paper body would go into detail about what that means so that everyone is on the same page.

Oh jeez, sorry I didn't realize if it comes from an abstract you can completely disregard what it says. Okay then, well here's an excerpt from the actual paper then. Sorry about that:

Quote

Physical realism suggests that the results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems. It remains surprising that this tenet is very little challenged, as its significance goes far beyond science. Quantum physics, however, questions this concept in a very deep way. To maintain a realistic description of nature, non-local hidden-variable theories are being discussed as a possible completion of quantum theory.

I guess that clears up what kind of Realism they are talking about if the abstract didn't right? Or is there some other excuse you have up our sleeve to dismiss this entirely as well?

Quote
Sorry, bub, but I happen to understand what the entire EPR controversy is actually arguing about. It has fuck-all to do with the wide definition of realism you want it to be. The Bell inequalities concerned only the polarizations of particles in singleton entanglements, much the same with Leggett's inequalities. Yes, you have to lose polarization/spin and a few other attributes as inherent qualities of quantum particles. That does not mean you have to lose all of philosophical realism.

Hey did you hear that they conclusively showed that 430 atom molecules can be put into superposition and act the exact same way as these "quantum particles' you talk about? http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html)

Oh and they also successfully but a 30 micrometer long paddle consisting of literally trillions of atoms into superposition as well. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html)

It's beginning to look like all this 'spooky quantum weirdness" you guys are so scared of isn't going to be limited to only the "very very small" for very long... Philosophical Realism is a dead ideology walking. But hold tight Hakurei Reimu!! Keep the faith!
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 04, 2014, 05:44:33 PM
Oh jeez, sorry I didn't realize if it comes from an abstract you can completely disregard what it says. Okay then, well here's an excerpt from the actual paper then. Sorry about that:
Quote
Physical realism suggests that the results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems. It remains surprising that this tenet is very little challenged, as its significance goes far beyond science. Quantum physics, however, questions this concept in a very deep way. To maintain a realistic description of nature, non-local hidden-variable theories are being discussed as a possible completion of quantum theory.

I guess that clears up what kind of Realism they are talking about if the abstract didn't right? Or is there some other excuse you have up our sleeve to dismiss this entirely as well?
Where in that exerpt does it say that the things we think of as real aren't actually real? Where does it say that matter is not real? Where does it say that the results of observations about physical systems aren't true?

Nowhere! Again, you are reading into what is actually written what you want it to say. What is being described is exactly the hidden variables problem; exactly what I said the EPR problem was about! "The results of observations are a consequence of properties carried by physical systems" — hidden variables! This is even clarified later in that paragraph: "non-local hidden-variable theories are being discussed as a possible completion of quantum theory." The alternative presented by quantum mechanics is that there is genuine randomness associated with physical observations.

Hey did you hear that they conclusively showed that 430 atom molecules can be put into superposition and act the exact same way as these "quantum particles' you talk about? http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html)

Oh and they also successfully but a 30 micrometer long paddle consisting of literally trillions of atoms into superposition as well. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html)

It's beginning to look like all this 'spooky quantum weirdness" you guys are so scared of isn't going to be limited to only the "very very small" for very long... Philosophical Realism is a dead ideology walking. But hold tight Hakurei Reimu!! Keep the faith!
Again, where does it say that the 430 atom molecule doesn't exist, or the 30 micrometer paddle doesn't exist? Idealism doesn't predict that matter exists in superpositions: it predicts that matter does not exist, which is something you are going to have a hard time proving.

Seriously, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 06:56:42 PM
You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.

What you perceive as an external material object is not actually an external material object. If it were, it would be completely unaffected by observation. If this were a objective material reality, there is no way in hell one object could effect another object instantaneously without physically interacting with it in any way. Bell's Theorem was devised to test the thought that, "well maybe these two separated objects can interact with each other over a distance because there is some kind of physical signal being sent that we can't detect." For 80 years Quantum Physicists have been trying to save Realism and they have now eliminated every conceivable possible way that Realism could coexist with our observations about how reality actually behaves.

You can take an object, a 430 atom molecule for instance, and when it is unobserved it instantly ceases to exist in any classical meaning of the term "exist". We know that this actually happens, and we have mathematical formula's that describe the probability of where we might observe it when we decide to observe again, but while unobserved everything about it's state is transformed into mathematical probabilities that are more like thoughts and ideas that we made up than actual objective material objects. Realism states that physical reality is independent of observation. Therefore, IF REALISM WERE TRUE THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANY MATERIAL OBJECT ESPECIALLY A 430 ATOM MOLECULE!!!!!!!

I don't understand your argument at all. What are you saying? "Realism means that physical reality exists independent of observation, but just because physical reality doesn't exist independent of observation doesn't mean that Realism is false." Is that your argument? Or is it more like, "Just because Bell's and Leggett's Inequalities were violated doesn't mean that all of reality is observation-dependent, it only means that all of the atoms and particles that make up all of reality are observation-dependent." Is that your argument?

Hidden-variable theories test if there is any possible way that QM results can be explained under the assumption of classical realism. Local and non-local hidden variable theories have been violated, and thus to maintain that classical realism is somehow still a viable assumption can only be described as a unique sort of cognitive-dissonance. Especially coming from someone intelligent as you obviously are.

Look at what you are doing! Is there any other instance when you have fought so hard against blatant scientific evidence? Why are you fighting so hard against science that is so obvious? Realism is false. Admit it. Notice how you feel right now, this is EXACTLY how a creationist feels when they are coming up with tortured and twisted apologetics to deny the evidence for evolution. What you are doing is APOLOGETICS.

The papers I provided are very clear about what they mean by "realism" and that their results require that realism be abandoned. They refer to it as "a realistic description of nature" that's "significance goes far beyond science" and admit that "most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation." How can you maintain that what they are talking about is not what I am talking about? Why would they speak in this way or even bring up philosophical Realism if what their entire paper is about has nothing to do with philosophical realism as you claim????

I am not saying that "nothing is real" and "nothing exists" I am just saying we do not live in "an external reality [that] exists independent of observation." You should be able to admit this in light of the evidence but you wont, even though you normally uphold science, because this goes against your cherished beliefs, so instead you do backflips to dismiss the evidence staring you in the face.

The fact that Realism is a false assumption about reality has deep ramifications. A logical person who intellectually honest would abandon a view that no longer has any empirical evidence to support it, and courageously face the challenge having to fundamentally rethink one's view of reality. A weak minded person who cherished belief over reason would dismiss all evidence that is contrary to what he already believes to be true and close his mind to any new information by sticking his head in the sand in order to avoid changing his mind and rethinking his world view.

If you are so convinced that Realism is compatible with QM then prove it by taking the Quantum Randi Challenge and claim your Nobel Prize by overturning every piece of experimental evidence that has come out since 1925. I'll wait.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 04, 2014, 10:06:43 PM
You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.
This has always been the case. That's why we do experiments. IDIOT.

What you perceive as an external material object is not actually an external material object. If it were, it would be completely unaffected by observation. If this were a objective material reality, there is no way in hell one object could effect another object instantaneously without physically interacting with it in any way.
And QM says that any observation is automatically a physical interaction, so observation can affect the observed. IDIOT.

Bell's Theorem was devised to test the thought that, "well maybe these two separated objects can interact with each other over a distance because there is some kind of physical signal being sent that we can't detect."
No. Bell's Inequalities are a way to test whether or not entangled particles carry their polarization information with them when created, and as such are in definite states before measured. Leggett's inequalities are a way to test whether or not the systems as a whole were in definite states. The failure of both indicate that there are no definite underlying states constraining the systems, even ones enforced by an underlying consciousness. IDIOT.

For 80 years Quantum Physicists have been trying to save Realism and they have now eliminated every conceivable possible way that Realism could coexist with our observations about how reality actually behaves.
And the implication of the violation of both equalities mean that QM is complete: that means that there is no deeper theory than QM. This is it. There is no underlying classical system (which would preserve either Leggett's or Bell's inequality) that underpins QM, even a computer simulator running on conscious fairy dust. IDIOT.

You can take an object, a 430 atom molecule for instance, and when it is unobserved it instantly ceases to exist in any classical meaning of the term "exist". We know that this actually happens, and we have mathematical formula's that describe the probability of where we might observe it when we decide to observe again, but while unobserved everything about it's state is transformed into mathematical probabilities that are more like thoughts and ideas that we made up than actual objective material objects. Realism states that physical reality is independent of observation. Therefore, IF REALISM WERE TRUE THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANY MATERIAL OBJECT ESPECIALLY A 430 ATOM MOLECULE!!!!!!!
And how would you know how a 430 atom material object is supposed to behave without observing it first? It's still totally made out of atoms, which is what materialism dictates.

And again we come to your bait-and-switch — it is materialism that opposes your idealism, not realism. After all, couldn't the consciousness computer underlying reality encode definite state data for each object just as well as a "realistic" reality, and thus be, in itself, realistic? Your particular argument against realism proves FUCK-ALL for your case for idealism. IDIOT.

I don't understand your argument at all. What are you saying? "Realism means that physical reality exists independent of observation, but just because physical reality doesn't exist independent of observation doesn't mean that Realism is false." Is that your argument? Or is it more like, "Just because Bell's and Leggett's Inequalities were violated doesn't mean that all of reality is observation-dependent, it only means that all of the atoms and particles that make up all of reality are observation-dependent." Is that your argument?
No, it means that the kind of "observation" that you think should exist if the world is realistic is not actually implied by realism, nor does it exist in the world. It also means that matter is not bound to your expectations. The fact that subatomic particles don't behave the way YOU think they should behave if everything is made up of those subatomic particles has no bearing on whether the everything is made up of those subatomic particles. IDIOT.

Hidden-variable theories test if there is any possible way that QM results can be explained under the assumption of classical realism.
That's right. CLASSICAL realism. Quantum mechanics is not a classical theory and as such there should be no expectation that it should follow CLASSICAL realism. That doesn't mean that there is not some other form of realism that QM could adhere to.

Local and non-local hidden variable theories have been violated, and thus to maintain that classical realism is somehow still a viable assumption can only be described as a unique sort of cognitive-dissonance. Especially coming from someone intelligent as you obviously are.
That's right. Except that I don't retain CLASSICAL realism, because they don't pertain to QUANTUM theories. Further, this argument has FUCK-ALL to do with whether or not the universe is materialist, because that is a separate question altogether. A question that, in all of your spiel about realism, has not been answered to the slightest degree.

Your screeching about realism is, at best, a distraction from your real stated issue — the defeat of materialism. Strictly speaking, you don't even have to destroy realism in order to prove idealism. You are pursuing a red herring. IDIOT.

Look at what you are doing! Is there any other instance when you have fought so hard against blatant scientific evidence?
Just because you say it's "blatant scientific evidence" does not mean that it is. IDIOT.

Why are you fighting so hard against science that is so obvious?
Just because you say that I'm "fighting so hard against science that is so obvious" does not mean that I am, or that it's obvious. Remember, this very point you are arguing is being argued over by real professionals as we speak. That's hardly a point that is "obvious." IDIOT.

Realism is false. Admit it. Notice how you feel right now, this is EXACTLY how a creationist feels when they are coming up with tortured and twisted apologetics to deny the evidence for evolution. What you are doing is APOLOGETICS.
That's my line. I'm going to defer to the real professional consensus when they say that materialism is alive and well, and going to call you out unless and until the consensus shifts towards your idealism. Because if it is so "obvious," the guy who works it out and finds a way to demonstrate it is up for a Nobel Prize, and unlimited fame and fortune going around the woo circuit telling them all they were right all along. IDIOT.

The papers I provided are very clear about what they mean by "realism" and that their results require that realism be abandoned.
Yes, it is quite clear. That doesn't mean you have understood it, and you have not. IDIOT.

They refer to it as "a realistic description of nature" that's "significance goes far beyond science" and admit that "most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation." How can you maintain that what they are talking about is not what I am talking about? Why would they speak in this way or even bring up philosophical Realism if what their entire paper is about has nothing to do with philosophical realism as you claim????
Because someone well-versed in the argument is cautious not to read too much into those quotes even if the author is being a tad hyperbolic. They know what the score is, so even if the particular author gets it a little wrong, we can still glark his meaning. In science, it is the consensus of professional opinion that decides what is the state of our scientific knowledge, not the ravings of any one author. IDIOT.

I am not saying that "nothing is real" and "nothing exists" I am just saying we do not live in "an external reality [that] exists independent of observation."
Since the kind of "observation" you demand simply plain doesn't exist, period, the statement is actually true, albeit vaccuously true. The external reality, if it exists, does exist independently of all observations that do not involve physical interactions — all none of them. IDIOT.

You should be able to admit this in light of the evidence but you wont, even though you normally uphold science, because this goes against your cherished beliefs, so instead you do backflips to dismiss the evidence staring you in the face.
Just because YOU think that the stuff you posted goes up against my cherished beliefs and doing backflips to preserve them, does not make it actually the case. IDIOT.

The fact that Realism is a false assumption about reality has deep ramifications. A logical person who intellectually honest would abandon a view that no longer has any empirical evidence to support it, and courageously face the challenge having to fundamentally rethink one's view of reality. A weak minded person who cherished belief over reason would dismiss all evidence that is contrary to what he already believes to be true and close his mind to any new information by sticking his head in the sand in order to avoid changing his mind and rethinking his world view.
See above. Your statements are not convincing in the slightest. I have, in numerous posts, given my reasons for why I don't believe you. If I have what I think are good reasons why I don't believe you or your interpretation of what is being said, then the only honest thing I can do is call bullshit. It also doesn't help your case that you pursue this red herring of CLASSICAL realism as if it had any bearing on materialism that is your real obsticle.

If and when the scientific consensus comes down in favor of your idealism, I'll accept it. But your word is decidedly NOT the scientific consensus. IDIOT.

If you are so convinced that Realism is compatible with QM then prove it by taking the Quantum Randi Challenge and claim your Nobel Prize by overturning every piece of experimental evidence that has come out since 1925. I'll wait.
I do not hold to CLASSICAL realism in QUANTUM reality. I agree that some of the things we normally think as real has no meaning for quantum systems. Perhaps all of them. That doesn't mean that there is not some underlying QUANTUM realism, nor that its absence automatically mean that idealism is correct and materialism is wrong, because that question is quite orthogonal to the question of realism — realism/nonrealism is a fucking red herring to your actual thesis.

I'll leave figuring out what the EPR experiments mean for reality to the professionals, and I suggest you do the same.

Oh, where are my manners?

IDIOT!
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 05, 2014, 12:13:29 AM
Well, first of all, STUPID HEAD, your claim that Realism is somehow unaffected because all observation is physical observation is entirely fallacious. Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiments such as http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578) show that you are making a moot point. The which-path information can be recorded and then erased and the fact that the PHYSICAL OBSERVATION you speak of occurred has absolutely NOTHING to do with the collapse of the wave function because when the information is erased the experimenters still get a defraction pattern. This proves that the cause of collapse is whether or not information is available to the conscious observers, not whether or not a physical interaction from the observation happened. STUPID HEAD

If you were right then whether or not the information is erased wouldn't matter because the physical interaction of the observation of which-path information happened right? If this physical interaction is the cause of collapse then why does the defraction pattern appear when they erase the which-path information after the physical interaction happened? Once the physical interaction of observation happened, they can't take that back, they should get a particle pattern if you are correct, but they don't. Because you are incorrect. STUPID HEAD

Your physical interaction theory is incorrect! False! Not correct! Insufficiently enlightened! Fallacious! Faulty! Wrong! The ramblings of a STUPID HEAD who is clinging to his cherished beliefs and nothing more! I declare weak APOLOGETICS!

Quote
the typical change in the wave function occurred only when some information entered my consciousness. It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness. Solipsism may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Monism in the sense of Materialism is not. - Eugen Wigner, a real life Nobel Prize Winner in Physics STUPID HEAD

You say, STUPID HEAD, that Materialism apposes Idealism and not Realism, but this incorrect, typical of STUPID HEADS to say. Materialism is the hideously deformed offspring of Realism. It is dependent upon Realism for it's survival. Realism can exist without Materialism, but Materialism cannot exist without Realism. Realism is the part of Materialism which states that physical reality exists independent of observation, Materialism states that this observation-independent reality consists only of Matter. Obviously, you couldn't have external objective material objects that are observation-dependent because this is a contradiction in terms. STUPID HEAD When Realism is false, so is Materialism.

And so you admit that Classical Realism is false. Well that's a step in the right direction STUPID HEAD. Take baby steps if you need to. But asserting some kind of "Quantum Realism" that has zero of the defining qualities of Realism is a ridiculous attempt to save face. It's actually quite hilarious when you think about. "Classical Realism is false but there could be some kind of, you know, Quantum Realism that doesn't have to be observation independent." Well the very definition of Realism requires observation independence STUPID HEAD  :rotflmao:

Sounds like you got the definition of Idealism (observation dependence) and changed up the name to "quantum realism". My god you LOVE realism so much!!! Look how dedicated you are!! You need a Realism Church and a Realism Bible so you can go to war against all these damn anti-Realists that are trying to take over the country. "teach the controversy!" - STUPID HEAD

Realism in any form, I don't care if it's classical or quantum, is committed to observation independence. If you have a definition with regards to Quantum Mechanics that allows for observation dependence, THEN IT'S NOT REALISM ANYMORE STUPID HEAD!! And are you seriously going to argue that Quantum Mechanics doesn't apply to the macro world when we've got 430 atom molecules in superposition?? Are you going to go that route to save face with your contortionist apologetics STUPID HEAD?

Go ahead and wait on your sacred high priests to tell you it's okay to drop Realism. I'm sure it will happen eventually. I know it's too hard for you to think for yourself so let someone else do the thinking for you. It's no different then blind commitment to the Bible. But just remember on that day when they give the good ol' thumbs up and tell what you can believe that Carry Cimovich Casparov tried to get you to think for yourself but you chose belief over reason. STUPID HEAD

p.s. Now since every interaction I have with you so quickly degrades into childish name calling this will be my final response to anything you post. good day sir.

http://youtu.be/VDW0ZnZxjn4
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 05, 2014, 12:45:22 AM
Stupid head? Wow, talk about going for the jugular.  :eek:
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 05, 2014, 12:50:43 AM
Stupid head? Wow, talk about going for the jugular.  :eek:

LMAO
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 05, 2014, 01:46:59 AM
http://youtu.be/VDW0ZnZxjn4
No, I'm sorry, I must protest. Morons don't get to use Condescending Wonka.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 05, 2014, 06:57:23 AM
The whole foundation of Casparov's point is: "I don't understand X, therefore X isn't real".

Narcissism at its best.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Jason78 on May 05, 2014, 12:11:01 PM
To be fair, learning about X is bloody hard.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 05, 2014, 12:30:48 PM
X will be a saint in the afterlife.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 05, 2014, 01:40:01 PM
Realism is a dead ideology walking.

This is your opinion. It hasn't been "proven" at all.
I have defended you against the troll allegations but I think I made a mistake especially when you lie so blatantly about what science has proven or not proven.

Like you, I'm not a physicist but even a casual search about QM indicates that what you claim as an absolute certainty is nothing of the sort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

While the effects of QM are repeatable, the causes of all the weirdness are not even close to being understood and there is much disagreement. Neil Degrasse Tyson has an excellent series on Netflix called "The Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" Check it out and try to understand what is NOT known.

All you are doing is switching a god of the gaps argument for a consciousness of the gaps argument. It doesn't work for god and it won't for consciousness either.

So please stop lying about a scientific certainty that does not exist. I would have to recommend to the moderators that continued lying should be met with a permanent ban.

Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 05, 2014, 01:53:18 PM
We had a conspiracy theorist on here- Atheistmofo- who would not, absolutely would not accept any counter evidence to his fanatical belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. Casparov is shaping up to be in the same mold. He simply will not accept any refutation or evidence to the contrary.

I'm not a shrink, but I'm pretty sure there is a personality type that meets this description.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 05, 2014, 02:22:41 PM
Your interpretation of quantum theory does not interest me. You confuse classical realism with realism, unqualified. You consistently miss the point that even if you're correct that realism in general is dead, that does not disprove materialism nor does it prove idealism. There is no point in further discussion.

p.s. Now since every interaction I have with you so quickly degrades into childish name calling this will be my final response to anything you post. good day sir.
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140306235947/clubpenguinpookie/images/3/32/Grumpy_Cat_Good.jpg)
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 05, 2014, 07:13:12 PM
This video explains why consciousness is nothing special to QM as shown by the quantum eraser experiment. I highly recommend the entire series in order.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sQfSm6o-KlQ
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 05, 2014, 08:14:01 PM
Lol, I love the video. The narrator has exactly the same voice as my 7th grade English teacher. I was her favorite student because we had a school full of farmers that thought literature was what you put on the bottom of a birdcage. She loved me for the fact that I read Coleridge because I liked poetry.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 05, 2014, 11:02:04 PM
Lol, I love the video. The narrator has exactly the same voice as my 7th grade English teacher. I was her favorite student because we had a school full of farmers that thought literature was what you put on the bottom of a birdcage. She loved me for the fact that I read Coleridge because I liked poetry.

I love that you can hear the smile in her voice.  :smile2:
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 01:00:41 AM
I present to you peer reviewed scientific papers, you respond with cute youtube videos and Niele degrasse Tyson documentaries. If you study the actual evidence you can see for yourself what is actually happening, if you listen to the opinion's of others, you accept all of their bias' and fallibility as your own.

Every scientist or scientifically minded person or Atheist or person who is educated in science, who is a REALIST and/or MATERIALIST is obviously going to do there very very very best to either deny the evidence outright or obscure it by pointing to controversial in opinions. You cannot argue against bare facts and peer reviewed evidence with opinionated commentary designed for mass consumption produced by obvious Realists. That's not a actual argument.

Quote
“It is probably fair to say that most members of the physics community would reject these ideas.... However, their reasons would be based more on prejudice than on sound argument, and the proportion of those who reject it would be much smaller if we considered only those who had actually thought carefully about the problems of quantum theory.”
 - Euan Squires

It is quite obvious to anyone who actually studies the evidence that we are steadily trending towards Realism finally being declared totally bankrupt. Every out that Realism has is slowly being eliminated as a possibility one by one and as of today it has virtually no where else to go at all, but Realists will still hold onto to whatever thin threads they imagine must actually be there because once they give up Realism, once they let that one slip way, suddenly EVERYTHING is to be reconsidered. Their entire world view and basis for understanding reality must then be deeply questioned and worst of all, they must admit they were wrong.

You people have not provided a SHRED of evidence supporting either Realism or Materialism. Take note of that! No positive evidence, all you offer is apologetics in the form of "no that's not what it means" or "it only disproves this kind of realism not that kind of realism" or "that's not for certain, we aren't all the way sure of that" or "well this cute youtube video disagrees" or "this documentary disagrees" or "there isn't widespread scientific consensus" or "there is still some controversy". All of which are logical fallacies and do not even attempt to address the actual evidence at hand. Does this sound familiar: "TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!"???

ADDRESS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE!!!

All you offer is apologetics. If you want to ACTUALLY defend Realism why don't you dig up a single peer reviewed scientific paper that proves that Realism is a viable assumption? Why don't offer a single piece of proof that supports your assumption? All you offer is apologetics about why all of this mountain of evidence that is at variance with your world view isn't actually at variance with your world view. You have no positive proof, you only dodge all of the evidence against your position. If you hold fast to Realism, you are making a positive assertion about the nature of reality, you are therefore subject to the Burden of Proof. SO PROVE IT!! Refute the evidence in a real way with COUNTER EVIDENCE, or better present POSITIVE EVIDENCE for Realism! Can you? I dare you to! I challenge you to prove that Realism is true. I triple double dog dare you to. Here's a suggestion: Take the Quantum Randi Challenge and prove Realism is compatible with QM predictions and claim yourself a Nobel Prize!

Of course you wont, because you can't, because it's not possible, because REALISM IS A DEAD IDEOLOGY WALKING and you can't admit it because you are married to it as your cherished belief you will never let go of until your high priests tell you to. All you have to offer is weak apologetics. Cute youtube videos and wishy washy documentaries. GIVE ME EVIDENCE OR GTFO

I feel like I offered a peer reviewed break down of the fossil record and you responded with a Kent Ham youtube video and a William Lane Craig documentary. ATHEIST APOLOGETICS
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 02:21:43 AM
This video explains why consciousness is nothing special to QM as shown by the quantum eraser experiment. I highly recommend the entire series in order.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sQfSm6o-KlQ

It is extremely cute how entirely wrong this video is. Do you not think that if this video were true that there would have been countless articles written by now that proclaim to the world finally, " Consciousness does not cause collapse!" Realism would be saved if this girl was correct. Unfortunately, she makes no sense. Notice how triumphantly she declares that consciousness does not cause collapse and then at the end of the video states that "how measurement works is still an open question today, which is strange because measurement is vital to quantum mechanics."

Let's consider her thought experiment:

Quote
Either M1 is a machine being monitored by a conscious observer, or M1 is a machine but no conscious observer ever sees the result. If the hypothesis is true, then in the first case, the slit that the particle goes through is measured, so there can be no interference pattern, but in the second case it's not measured, so there should be an interference pattern. Instead, when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference. This leads us to the conclusion that there really isn't anything special about conscious observers in Quantum Mechanics.

The first thing I notice is that she offers no sources in the description of her video, and thus I have no idea what experiment she is talking about when she claims, "Instead, when the experiment is done..." What experiment? Source please! Every Quantum Eraser experiment ever completed has had the exact opposite result as what she claims. If what she is saying were true, then the "Observer Effect" would have been explained when the first Quantum Eraser experiment was successfully conducted by Scully and Kim in 1999 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf)

From that peer reviewed paper titled "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser":

Quote
In the two-slit experiment, the common "wisdom" is that the position-momentum uncertainty relation makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon (or electron) passes through without at the same time disturbing the interference pattern. However, it has been proven that under certain circumstances this common interpretation may not be true. In 1982, Skully and Druhl found a way around this position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to obtain which-path or particle-like information without scattering or otherwise introducing large uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference. To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase (quantum eraser) the which-path information.

The cute little girl says, "when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference." and then when you read the actual peer reviewed paper it says, "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." Thus your cute little video is refuted.

The entire point of a Quantum Eraser experiment is to ensure that the which-path information is obtained or erased only after it has been detected by, let's call the detector, M1.

So M1 detects the which path information, and the decision to obtain it (M1 is a machine being monitored by a conscious observer) or erase it (M1 is a machine but no conscious observer ever sees the result) is made after M1 has made the detection.

If it is decided to erase the which path information (M1 is a machine but no conscious observer ever sees the result) the interference patter reappears!! If it is decided to obtain the which path information (M1 is a machine being monitored by a conscious observer) the wave function collapses and they get a particle pattern!! In both cases M1 "measures" the only difference is if M1 is monitored by a conscious observer or not. Your video is 100% incorrect about the results of the experiment. The machine's measurement does not cause the collapse even when it erases the information and no conscious observer is able to monitor it. She said, "when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference," and SHE IS WRONG!!!! And she has no sources, so you are just trusting some little Australian girl's word on it. Do you see how easily you accept something that agrees with your beliefs and how much kickback you give when something disagrees with your beliefs? You are accepting the word of a little girl over the peer reviewed evidence because the little girl agrees with your beliefs and the peer reviewed evidence disagrees. TAKE NOTE OF THIS!!!

This is and has been the result of Quantum Eraser Experiments every single time and why the "mystery remains" in the worlds of Realists. If what your video said was true then every Realist in the world would be shouting the merits of the results of the Quantum Eraser experiment from the rooftops because finally they would have their proof that consciousness has nothing to do with observations!!! But alas, the exact opposite is the actual case, and you will find this out if you study the EVIDENCE instead of just browsing through commentary and opinions looking for anything that agrees with your beliefs....

A great break down reviewed by Dr. Kim himself who conducted the actual experiment is found here: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm)

Quote
In this experiment, a single photon is aimed at the double-slit. If it passes through the left slit, it will hit a crystal placed behind the slit on the left side of the crystal; if through the right slit, it will hit the crystal on the right side.

Quote
As discussed below, the experimental setup ensures that this which-path information for the signal photons is obtained or erased only after the signal photon has been detected and the information is winging its way toward the Coincidence Circuit.

Quote
The detecting mechanism that has tagged the which-path information (i.e., the generation of an entangled pair at either region A or region B) has already been accomplished, but it has not yet yielded up its which-path information to any observer.

Quote
Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.

Quote
Ho-hum. Another experimental proof of QM. This is the way it works, folks.

And if you want videos, here's a better one:

http://youtu.be/7DiEl7msEZc
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 02:39:08 AM
I believe the video with the cutesy female voice was narrated by the scientist who did the experiment. And you of indeterminate scientific background are calling her a liar? Boy that is some serious hubris.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2014, 02:39:21 AM
It is extremely cute how entirely wrong this video is. Do you not think that if this video were true that there would have been countless articles written by now that proclaim to the world finally, " Consciousness does not cause collapse!"
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/211/481/1322884994202.jpg)

There are countless articles about "materialism." There just so happens to be an entire branch of human understanding devoted to the subject, in fact: science. The more you know!
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 02:59:51 AM
I believe the video with the cutesy female voice was narrated by the scientist who did the experiment. And you of indeterminate scientific background are calling her a liar? Boy that is some serious hubris.

She is calling Kim and Scully liars! She is calling Anton Zeilinger and every other Quantum Physicist who has actually conducted the Quantum Eraser Experiment and published the results in a peer reviewed journal liars! Of course I am going to call her out for distributing false information!

If she has done the experiment where can I read her paper? In which peer reviewed journal were her results published? Her results are the exact opposite results of every Quantum Eraser Experiment that has ever been conducted and published to date.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 05:53:04 AM
The point being how can YOU call her a liar? If she disagrees with others who publish different results and can back her results, what does that say? Ever heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant? This is similar to what you are doing. You can disagree with one set of theorems and agree with another, but that DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CASE. You are arguing one set of beliefs against another, nothing more.

Quess what? I've been saying on here continually that you can't prove the existence of a deity. With all of your long winded prose, you have not done that and you never will. 6,000 years of effort by better minds than you has not done it and neither can you. You cannot even quantify what a god is, much less describe it.

I also said previously that particle physicists-Hawking, Krauss- have built paradigms that don't require a god to create the universe. Can you build a paradigm where a god is an absolute necessity, refuting their models? Based on the babble you have laid down here, I highly doubt it. I don't care how many theoretical situations you can quote mine, the simple fact is you can't build a model wherein god is an absolute necessity, because BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE EVER HAS.

I have a degree in English Lit. I am no physicist, but I can read. I also know how to wade through gobbedygook and find the meat of an argument. Go read up on Rhetoric. You have not provided a cogent argument and you never will, because everything you put on here is a rephrasing of your original thesis in a different form. Them's the facts. So stop all the babble and get to the fucking point. This whole thing has risen to a level of absurdity beyond measure. You have not proven your point because you can't.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Icarus on May 06, 2014, 08:18:30 AM
You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.

If this is really the case any paper or citation you've provided is now invalid regarding your argument because your citations rely on experiments bound by the measurable and quantifiable universe. You're saying this is not how we should be looking at what is real, so any experiment or paper you provide can be dismissed. You can really only attack this argument as a purely philosophical experiment designed to make you feel smart without having to actually come to a conclusion. Bravo, do you feel special? You should, your entire purpose on this forum is so you can make yourself feel special. Here's a lollipop.

(http://www.towngreendistrict.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/lollipop-390x600.jpg)
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 06, 2014, 08:31:43 AM
So now Casparov went from, "If I don't understand X, therefore X doesn't exist" to, "If anyone doesn't agree with me is a liar". :liar:
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 06, 2014, 08:36:57 AM
Quote
Do you not think that if this video were true that there would have been countless articles written by now that proclaim to the world finally, " Consciousness does not cause collapse!" Realism would be saved if this girl was correct.
And if your video was correct do you not think there would be a world revolution that proclaims to the world finally, "We only exist as consciousness"
Realism is alive and well.

The part you continually miss is that the issue of measurement lies at the heart of the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, for which there is currently no consensus
And yet, without consensus and without being a physicist, you proclaim the issue solved just like a good religious person.
If you watch the Tyson lectures you'll see that ALL current theories are leaving out dark matter and dark energy which make up 96% of all there is and that we know nothing about. So with knowledge of only 4% of the universe you declare the issue resolved! That's a joke.


Why Quatum mechanics does not debunk Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqVTq17iIHs
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 10:02:23 AM
OK Berati. Simply because of my great respect for your posting I will sit through an hour of explanations about materialism. The combined weight of philosophy and science and (shudder) math will probably make my head explode. But I'm doing this for the cause. Remember me fondly.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 06, 2014, 10:11:20 AM
It's no wonder that philosophy has become a dead subject: a bunch of self-proclaimed philosophers, who are non-physicists and have never done calculations in deriving certain concepts from some basic assumptions,  are clueless about how physics works, yet arguing about the interpretations of these derivations.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 06, 2014, 10:18:31 AM


Quote
“One reason why it’s confusing is because there is sort of two levels of waviness. Alright?

“So, if the world were really made out of particles, but quantum mechanics were true, there would still be a certain waviness about the world because quantum mechanics says that even if there are particles, the way you describe those particles is through a wave function; through a field that fills space and tells you what the probability is of observing that particle. So the world is made of particles, but the observations of the particles are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, which involves some wave.

“But the quantum field theory philosophy says that there is not even a particle. What you start with is a field - something that looks waving, something that fills all of space, like the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field - then you apply the rules of quantum mechanics to that, and miraculously what comes out when we look at it are particles.

“So quantum mechanics says that what you see when you observe the universe comes to us - in very frequent circumstances - in discrete packets, discrete lumps. Even if the underlying reality is smooth, we see it in individual discrete bits, and it’s the particles that make up you and me that are the discrete bits we see when we look at fields.

“Fields vibrating and interacting with each other is just the most poetic language that I can think of. The math is perfectly straight forward. You’re young enough to study the math. Go for it.”

-- Sean Carroll
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 10:53:23 AM
Outstanding video. Berati deserves 100 internets for this. If I can understand it, anyone should be able to. And i survived with only a nosebleed.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 11:25:57 AM
Can't wait to see Casparov's reply to this one. I'm thinking about 8 pages of indecipherable garble. Waiting on pins and needles here.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 06, 2014, 01:12:11 PM
OK Berati. Simply because of my great respect for your posting I will sit through an hour of explanations about materialism. The combined weight of philosophy and science and (shudder) math will probably make my head explode. But I'm doing this for the cause. Remember me fondly.

Oh, I wouldn't recommend it. It's pretty boring and I posted it to drive Ghosthead crazy as he obsessively tries to deconstruct it to support the conclusion he had already arrived at.
The end result with QM is that it is currently subject to interpretations and there are quite a few.
The major point in all these videos as that there are NO HUMAN OBSERVERS. Because the particles are so small they cannot be observed by us directly, they are all detected by machinery that we then read. The waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on.

As per Werner Heisenburg
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being"
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Jason78 on May 06, 2014, 01:14:59 PM
Oh, I wouldn't recommend it.

2 Hours!  2 sodding hours of dry documentaries about quantum fucking physics! :(

I sat through all of that :(
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 06, 2014, 01:25:55 PM
2 Hours!  2 sodding hours of dry documentaries about quantum fucking physics! :(

I sat through all of that :(

LOL, Sorry dude.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 02:12:02 PM
The point being how can YOU call her a liar? If she disagrees with others who publish different results and can back her results, what does that say? Ever heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant? This is similar to what you are doing. You can disagree with one set of theorems and agree with another, but that DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CASE. You are arguing one set of beliefs against another, nothing more.

No silly, I'm presenting to you the results of a peer reviewed experiment that contradict some youtube video with absolutely no sources to back it up.

The sourceless youtube video claims: "when the experiment is done, both cases lead to no interference."

The peer reviewed scientific paper states:  "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf)

She gives commentary about the Quantum Eraser Experiment and claims that both cases lead to no interference, but the original paper of the Quantum Eraser Experiment states that one case leads to no interference, and the other case lead to the reappearance of the interference. This is not one set of beliefs versus another, this is EVIDENCE verses sourceless commentary!

If you are willing to outright reject the conclusions of peer reviewed scientific experiment this is absolutely ridiculous. If you are willing to outright reject the ACTUAL EXPERIMENT and the ORIGINAL PAPER which describes it, what are we doing???? This is absolutely amazing. My mind is blown at the extent you guys go to deny the science. I thought science was what Atheists were all about???

When the original paper states outright that the detector does it's "measurement" and when a conscious observer obtained the which-path information they get no interference and when they erase it the interference reappears, what the hell is there to argue about? What is your argument? This is pretty damn straight forward.

Obviously if the measuring device itself could be considered an "observer" it would not matter if the information was erased or not after it performed the measurement, because the measurement itself would cause the collapse every time and in both cases they would get no interference pattern like the australian girl said. But that's not the conclusion of the experiment! "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." - A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser by Yoon-Ho Kim and Marlan O. Scully

You are not arguing against just me, you arguing against SCIENCE in order to preserve your beliefs about the world! If you are going to reject peer reviewed hard scientific evidence there is no use talking to you. You do not even address the evidence, you revert instantly to apologetics and arguments from ignorance and complexity, logical fallacies to refute hard evidence. There is no difference between arguing with you and arguing with fundamentalist creationists. In both cases you cherish belief over evidence.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 02:16:04 PM
If this is really the case any paper or citation you've provided is now invalid regarding your argument because your citations rely on experiments bound by the measurable and quantifiable universe. You're saying this is not how we should be looking at what is real, so any experiment or paper you provide can be dismissed. You can really only attack this argument as a purely philosophical experiment designed to make you feel smart without having to actually come to a conclusion. Bravo, do you feel special? You should, your entire purpose on this forum is so you can make yourself feel special. Here's a lollipop.

Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be actually is so. The only constraint is that the question be decided by feedback gathered from the world by an accepted research method. Science does not require an objective world, only information to test theories against, which a Virtual Reality can easily provide. Not only can science accommodate the virtual world concept, a virtual world could also sustain science.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 02:38:15 PM
The major point in all these videos as that there are NO HUMAN OBSERVERS. Because the particles are so small they cannot be observed by us directly, they are all detected by machinery that we then read. The waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on.

You wrote, "they are all detected by machinery that we read." Exactly! And the Quantum Eraser experiments prove that if the machinery detects and then erases so that "we do not read" then we get an interference pattern just as if no measurement ever took place! This is the whole point of the Quantum Eraser Experiment!

You then say "the waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on." Sources please? I've read the results of every main Quantum Eraser Experiment that has ever been conducted and published in a peer reviewed journal and not one agrees with you. "To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase the which-path information." - A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser by Yoon-Ho Kim and Marlan O. Scully http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf)

The only instance I can think of that is similar to what you are describing is if the measuring device measures and records the which-path information but does not erase it, it actually saves the information so that it is available and able to be accessed by a "conscious observer" at any time. If the which-path information is saved and available to be accessed, even if no one "reads" it, we still get no interference just as if we had. When the which-path information is accessible to us in any way, the wave function collapses, when it is erased and made entirely unavailable, the interference patter reappears.

The important thing to note is that the measuring device measuring is not the cause of collapse alone, otherwise they would get no interference pattern no matter if they erased the which-path information or not because the measurement from the device alone would cause the collapse every single time. Instead they see that if the which-path information is erased the interference pattern reappears. It is only when a conscious observer has access to the which-path information that they get no interference pattern.

Quote
As per Werner Heisenburg
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being"

Werner Heisenberg died in 1976 and the first Quantum Eraser Experiment (which disproves this quote) was not successfully completed until 1999. Up until then, his statements were in line with all experimental evidence. But now that we have the results of Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiments, we know that this quote is incorrect. An apparatus that does not relay it's recorded information to any human being does not cause the collapse just by the act of measuring alone. The collapse only takes place when that apparatus relays it's recorded information to a human being.

If you disagree, show me evidence. Sources please.

Now I have a long video to watch....
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 06, 2014, 02:54:30 PM
Casparov, since I'm moderating the debate between you and Mr Obvious, I've voluntarily barred myself from interacting with you outside of that. However I am breaking that, at least for the moment, to point out that you are misinterpreting the data, and this only goes to show why laymen (in regards to QM anyway) like you and I are bound to make mistakes when reading into experiments done in not only fields that we have no expertise in, but also fields that are very complex.

I have a very simple question for you. If the whole point of the quantum eraser experiment is, as you say, prove that if the machinery detects and then erases so that "we do not read" then we get an interference pattern just as if no measurement ever took place, then how can this quantum erasure technology actually increase the resolution of advanced microscopes?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.2955&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I quote
"The quantum eraser effect of Scully and Drühl dramatically underscores the difference between our classical conceptions of time and how quantum processes can unfold in time. Such eyebrow-raising features of time in quantum mechanics have been labeled ‘‘the fallacy of delayed choice and quantum eraser’’ on the one hand and described ‘‘as one of the most intriguing effects in quantum mechanics’’ on
the other. In the present paper, we discuss how the availability or erasure of information generated in the past can affect how we interpret data in the present.
The quantum eraser concept has been studied and extended in many different experiments and scenarios, for example, the entanglement quantum eraser, the kaon quantum eraser, and the use of quantum eraser entanglement to improve microscopic resolution"

The issue here is whether or not you genuinely have a good grasp of what is being discussed.
What is both bewildering and alarming is your hostility in the face of contradicting data.
If you are genuinely in search to better yourself and your own understanding as well as your own world view, then introspection is in order.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 06, 2014, 02:57:16 PM
Casparov and introspection are oxymoron.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 03:30:48 PM
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Casparov, you may be the most disingenuous person we have ever had at this forum. Your quote is from many religious organization that want to give support for their dogma by using a scientific genius's supposed quote while giving science a back hand compliment, with no certification.  Einstein was not a religious person in the normal use of the word, he used the word God as a metaphor for the fact that the world can be understood, not for an actual God, or god. It's like saying spirit of the times, not talking about a real spirit.  Solitary

I'm not religious either silly. I agree with Einstein that organized religion is a poison upon the earth. I agree that religious belief is nothing more that "childish superstitions". Who you tellin'? Who do you think you are talking to? A fundy Xtian??

I also agree with Einstein that Atheists are so concerned and butt-hurt about religion that all they can think about and focus on is the incorrectness of the religion that was forced upon them so much so that they are blind to anything else. It consumes their intellectual capacity to the point that they don't even realize that they cling to beliefs just as religiously as any organized religion does. (Realism and Materialism)

Quote
"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the Professional Atheist whose ferver is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." - Albert Einstein (as quoted in Einstein: His Life and Universe)

Keep on beating up on that straw man of yours though. You are doing good.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 06, 2014, 03:50:42 PM
Actually,
I also agree with Einstein that Atheists are [...]
Here is a good example of how you tend to read into what was actually said.
Einstein never talked about atheists as a whole. He only spoke to fanaticism, and likewise called out the fanatical atheists, not atheism in general.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 06, 2014, 04:28:26 PM
The point of you being here is to prove the existence of god. Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

the proof has to be something that can in no wise be refuted to be accepted. Anything that can be debated against and shown as not infallible or by other evidence called in to question, is not proof.

Anything that shows an outcome that is not agreed upon or shown as universally accepted is not proof.

Anything not shown as valid through a rigorous system of scrutiny and agreed upon by the majority is not proof, or if any argument calls into question the validity of the outcome, it is not proof.

Until any theory or the data derived therefrom passes the rigorous test of scientific method and review, it is HYPOTHETICAL.
Hypothesis is not proof.

God is supernatural. Supernature assumes an existence outside of human knowledge and therefore not quantifiable in human terms. A god that creates a universe has to first exist. For that god to then exist inside a universe is a dichotomy, and also not explainable or comprehendible in human terms.

Any "proof" that seeks to quantify a (by definition) nonquantifiable god has to be subject to knowable, quantifiable scrutiny; i.e. science. This in itself renders any attempt to quantify a god moot, because by quantifying anything in human terms and labeling it as such, it is no longer supernatural and is no longer can be viewed as such.

Any paradigm (model) constructed that can by scientific method postulate or hypothesize a universe that does not need a god to create it, has to be taken into account, because to prove that a god can create a universe, you also have to prove that no other method or model is possible.

You have not provided insurmountable evidence.
You have not given irrefutable proof that subsumes all other arguments.
You have not proven that a universe cannot come into existence without the requirement of a supernatural deity.

You also have not provided any new evidence that has not been previously seen and used and called into question by other peple.

No one has successfully proven the existence of god. You can't and you won't.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Icarus on May 06, 2014, 04:32:10 PM
Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be actually is so. The only constraint is that the question be decided by feedback gathered from the world by an accepted research method. Science does not require an objective world, only information to test theories against, which a Virtual Reality can easily provide. Not only can science accommodate the virtual world concept, a virtual world could also sustain science.

I'm sorry to break this to you but virtual reality is an objective reality. Virtual reality is built on set measurable constraints, which is objective.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 06, 2014, 04:32:31 PM
Casparov, you may be the most disingenuous person we have ever had at this forum.
Of course he is. Casparov is an "idealist" who also claims "Of course [reality is] real! Of course it exists!" Sorry, but if you claim that reality does exist in some form, then you are not an idealist, period. He is also the one that claims that taking down physical/classical realism is the same thing as taking down philosophical realism, and cites as proof physicists using "realism" in physics papers — the context strongly implying (and in some cases outright stated) that only physical/classical realism is being negated.

Disingenuous and dishonest to the core, I say.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 04:41:24 PM
A Strawman in logic is attacking an argument different from (and weaker than.) the oppositions best argument.

Exactly. So because I'm not Atheist and I believe in god you attacking religion is a strawman. All religions on the planet could totally and demonstrably bankrupt and you would not have addressed the question of whether not god exists. The nature of reality, and the existence of god, has absolutely nothing to do with religions. So you trashing religion is strawmanning my position as a non-religious Theist.

Quote
You're not religious, then what are you, your not an atheist if you think God is a mind---which by the way is a strawman. Solitary

I am a Panentheist. "Either you are Atheist or you are religious" is a False Dichotomy. Belief in god does not necessitate religion in any way shape or form. Casparov
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
Someone please describe the difference between "Philosophical Realism" and "Physical/Classical Realism". I have been repeated accused of siting that Physical/Classical Realism has been conclusively disproven but extrapolating erroneously that this means that Philosophical Realism is disproven along with it.

If there is some huge difference between the two, so that one can be untrue and the other can be true simultaneously, please describe the difference.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 06, 2014, 06:17:31 PM
If there is some huge difference between the two, so that one can be untrue and the other can be true simultaneously
Nobody is saying that one is true and the other is false, it is simply that they have different fundamental implications.
Take the word 'desert' vs 'dessert'. When you are speaking it instead of discussing it in writing, you could be talking about the geological feature or the food course.
Same with the word 'flour' or 'flower'. There needs to be context to make sure you are applying the understanding.

Same applies to the understanding and interpretation of the words being used in quantum mechanics.
According to the (somewhat still vague and hard to grasp) definition of what you understand and propose when you say "god", I would actually coin you as definitely an atheist according to many of the counter-definitions.
This has absolutely nothing to do about you not being atheist. It is about the merit of your ideas and interpretations.

I don't think you fit as a panentheist either. How does your world view that god is our collective consciousness and this reality is simulated in order for us to evolve, fit within panentheism?
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 08:10:45 PM
Why Quatum mechanics does not debunk Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqVTq17iIHs

The first five minutes of this video are one huge Appeal To Complexity and then an Inflation of Conflict Argument. He then goes into his reasoning for dismissing the Nobel Prize in Physics winner Eugene Wigner’s conclusion that Materialism is incompatible with Materialism by stating, “However this view is neither mainstream nor orthodox.” GASP! Neither mainstream nor orthodox!? Well then this is undeniable proof that he was wrong! lol Are you kidding me??

Right out of the gate we have our third Logical Fallacy: An Appeal to Widespread Belief. This is an obvious logical fallacy because whether a belief is widely held or not has no baring on it’s actual truth value. This is not a valid argument.

He then goes into the same tired argument concerning the measuring devices that are required to do the “observing”. Yes we cannot make these observations with the naked eye, we need machines to make the measurements, but Quantum Eraser Experiments have proved ever since 1999 that the measuring devices do not cause the collapse when they erase the information that they measure, and therefore cannot be considered the cause of the “observer effect”. The “observer effect” of the collapse of a wave function only happens if the measuring device relays which-path information to a conscious human being. If it measures and then erases the information, the wave function does not collapse and the interference pattern reappears. If he wants to make this argument he will have to argue against the results of Quantum Eraser Experiments that show conclusively that he is incorrect. sigh....

He then spends a lot of wasted time discrediting Fred Alan Wolfe, another logical fallacy. Discrediting Fred Alan Wolfe does not address the evidence and even if Fred Alan Wolfe turns out to be a raving lunitic who is just shouting nonesense into a camera, this does not disprove the evidence provided by Quantum Experiments. This would be the FOURTH logical fallacy.

I am glad to see that he at least attempts to address the actual evidence at some point. (which more than I can say for most people on this forum) He tries however to insinuate that just because a measuring device is needed to make the observation, opposed to a human being observing with the naked eye, that this is somehow proof that the observer need not be conscious. But again, if that measuring device makes the measurement and then fails to relay the information to a conscious observer by erasing the information, the wave function does not collapse. This is proof that measuring devices themselves are not the cause of wave function collapse, and therefore cannot be considered observers. sigh...

If the which path information recorded by a measuring device is observed by a conscious human being, we get a particle pattern. If the which path information recorded by the measuring device is erased, we get an interference pattern. If this guy was right we should get a particle pattern in both instances because the measuring devices would collapse the wave function every single time just by the very act of measuring, and then we could say that an “observer need not be a conscious human being” but we cannot say that because of the results of Quantum Eraser Experiments!

I am very glad to hear this guy say that “The wave function does not have a physical reality, it’s just a mathematical model that describes the expectation values of particular observables of a quantum particle or system.” This is accurate as far as I am aware.

Quote
Quantum states are not physical objects: they exist only in our imagination. - Asher Peres

The problem though is that he goes on to say that “but it is not as if the particle didn’t have any physical properties prior to measurement.” And this demonstrably incorrect.

Quote
The theories are based on the following assumptions: (1) all measurement outcomes are determined by pre-existing properties of particles independent of the measurement (realism);...Nevertheless, we will show that all models based on assumptions (1)-(3) are at variance with other quantum predictions.

In Anton Zeilinger’s 2007 experiment http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529v2.pdf  (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529v2.pdf) they conclusively showed that the assumption that the particle has physical properties prior to measurement is a false assumption. Therefore, the narrator of your video is incorrect. But I am glad to see he is addressing the actual evidence rather than just reverting to logical fallacies.

He then keeps saying that “you have to perturb the system to make a measurement” insinuating that all measurement will necessarily cause the collapse of a wave function, demonstrating that he is obviously unaware of the Quantum Eraser Experiments:

Quote
In the two-slit experiment, the common "wisdom" is that the position-momentum uncertainty relation makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon (or electron) passes through without at the same time disturbing the interference pattern. However, it has been proven that under certain circumstances this common interpretation may not be true. In 1982, Skully and Druhl found a way around this position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to obtain which-path or particle-like information without scattering or otherwise introducing large uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference. To be sure the interference pattern disappears when the which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase (quantum eraser) the which-path information. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047 (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047)

He then produces a Strawman Argument by insinuating that “quantum spiritualists” say that wave particle duality proves that we “create our reality” but nobody has said that. I have not said that. And IP the youtuber who this guy is attacking doesn’t seem to be saying that either. We are merely saying that Realism/Materialism is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. NOBODY said anything about Quantum Mechanics proving that we “create our reality”. Yes, reality is observation-dependent, but that does not mean we are “creating” it, no more than a character in a virtual reality creates the trees that are rendered in his view only when he is there to observe them. He is attacking a stawman that nobody is defending. We are now up to FIVE Logical Fallacies...

He then goes on to admit, “Physicist Bernard Haisch was right, ‘Quantum Mechanics does not fit with the idea of an Objective Reality IN THAT the observables or properties of Quantum Mechanical systems are not well defined past some uncertainty.’ This obviously contrasts with the macroscopic world. Haisch was not making a claim about the whole of reality itself...” This is obvious apologetics. Contrasting the Macroscopic world against the Quantum World as if they are two distinct domains that have nothing to do with each other.

For starters, they have conducted the double slit experiment and observed the exact same behavior as "quantum particles" by using 430 atom large molecules. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html) They have put objects large enough to observe with the naked eye in superposition consisting of trillions upon trillions of atoms .http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html (http://.http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html) To hold to the position that Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with the macroscopic world can only be considered apologetic gymnastics.

Fortunately, Leggett once again comes to the rescue. In the peer reviewed scientific paper titled, “Quantum Mechanics versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There when Nobody Looks?” http://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/LeggettGarg1985.pdf (http://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/LeggettGarg1985.pdf) by Leggett and Garg in 1985, this very issue is tackled thusly:

Quote
Despite sixty years of schooling in quantum me-chanics, most' physicists have a very non-quantum-mechanical notion of reality at the macroscopic level, which implicitly makes two assumptions. (A1)Macro-scopic realism: A macroscopic system with two or removable environmental effects shows that for low more macroscopically distinct2 3 states available to it will at all times be in one or the other of these states. (A2) Noninvasive measurability at the macroscopic level: It is possible, in principle, to determine the state of the system with arbitrarily small perturbation on its subsequent dynamics. A direct extrapolation of quan- tum mechanics to the macroscopic level denies this. The aim of this Letter is (1) to point out that under certain conditions the experimental predictions of the conjunction of (Al) and (A2) are incompatible with those of quantum mechanics extrapolated to the mac- roscopic level, and (2) to investigate how far these conditions may be met in a realistic experiment.

The Leggett-Garg Inequalities were proposed to test Macroscopic Realism against Quantum Mechanics. Since the proposal several dozen experiments have reported violating the Leggett-Garg Inequalities in search of a macroscopic boundary beyond which Quantum Mechanics no longer applies, to date no such boundary has been found.

He attempts to separate the Macroscopic world from the Quantum World, but there is no indication that he should. When 430 atom large molecules can perform the same double slit experiment as a photon or an electron, where does the quantum world end? Is it 431 atom large molecules? 432? 433? Where is the line drawn? The Leggett-Garg Inequalities were produced to prove that the macroscopic scale cannot be separated from the quantum effects, and to date they have found no limit in scale where The Leggett-Garg Inequalities are not violated. There is no basis to separate the worlds as this guy does in this video without presenting any rational reason why or any evidence that he should.

We then are forced to endure this video discrediting yet another person, Bernard Haisch, which again is time wasted, as discrediting a person does not address the evidence and is therefore a logical fallacy and not an actual argument. We have now hit SIX logical fallacies and we are only half way though the video, at this rate we should hit a solid dozen before the video is completed.

To be continued...
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 08:27:44 PM
(continued)

He then goes into a very slurred and choppy speech that sounds very much like he is reading out of a text book and has no idea what he is talking about, describing that “in principle” the "knowledge of" which-path information only needs to be made “available” in order to collapse the wave function, “that’s where the dependence of the behavior of the particles lies,” and I completely agreed with this notion in an earlier post.

M1 is our detecter.
Scenerio 1) M1 detects the which-path information and relays it to a conscious observer. Result: NO interference pattern
Scenerio 2) M1 detects the which path information and erases it afterward so no conscious observer can have the “knowledge of”. Result: YES Interference pattern
Scenerio 3) M1 detects the which-path information and saves so that it’s “available in principle” but no conscious observer looks at the saved information. Result: NO interference pattern

The point is that the interference pattern goes away when either a conscious observer obtains the which-path information, or at least has the ability to obtain the which-path information “in principle”. If the information is erased entirely and there is no possibility of any conscious observer ever obtaining the which-path information, the interference pattern reappears.

This is NOT a point for Realism. If measuring devices themselves could be “observers” just as well as “conscious human beings” then we should not see the interference pattern reappear when the which-path information is erased. If no matter what, any time we perform a measurement with M1, whether we erased it or not, it always collapsed the wave function and we got NO interference pattern, then THAT would be a point for Realism. But this is simply not the case.

He then goes on to say that he totally agree with the results of the Kocken-Specker Theorem, which nice to hear, but he then goes on to dismiss the results entirely by saying that “but this is insignificant on a macroscopic scale”. Again he attempts to separate the Macroscopic world from the Quantum World, but there is no indication that he should.

I am happy to see that he actually addresses the Leggett-Garg violations in the second half of the video, and I agree that it is difficult to define what one means by “macroscopic”. What we know is that every single experiment that has been done to date has violated the Leggett-Garg inequalities and there is no reason to think this trend is going to suddenly stop at any point.
So it seems in the end the only Apologetics Argument that has even the least little bit of footing is the argument that says Quantum Mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with the Macro World. Everything else he offered was just blatantly false, and this is the only one I cannot knock down completely.

Suffice it to say that if trends continue Leggett-Garg inequalities will eventually be violated at undeniably Macro Scale and then this apologetics argument will crumble as well. To point to the fact that “we don’t yet know if Quantum Mechanics can be fully extrapolated onto the Macro World” is essential a “God of the Gaps” argument, but “Materialism of the Gaps” instead. We have a Gap in our knowledge that will surely be filled in eventually, but for now you cling to this as proof that Materialism and Realism are still not completely dead... A logical fallacy as you are aware...

In the end it should be clear that Realists are not offering any positive evidence in support of Realism. We do not see experiments being conducted that seem to support Realism in any way. There is no positive proof that has been offered in support of Materialism either. All we see are gymnastics and contortionist apologetics moves to deny and dismiss and refute scientific evidence that is undeniably at variance with the assumptions of Realism/Materialism. This video is analogous to a William Lane Craig video in support of creationism. It is nothing but WEAK APOLOGETICS.

Josephpalazzo stated:

Quote
It's no wonder that philosophy has become a dead subject: a bunch of self-proclaimed philosophers, who are non-physicists and have never done calculations in deriving certain concepts from some basic assumptions,  are clueless about how physics works, yet arguing about the interpretations of these derivations.

But I contend that Realism and in turn Materialism being false are simply logical conclusions as result of the evidence. These philosophical conclusions are common among physicists and the experimenters themselves:

Quote
Bell's theorem represents a significant advance in understanding the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The theorem shows that essentially all local theories of natural phenomena that are formulated within the framework of realism may be tested using a single experimental arrangement. Moreover, the predictions by those theories must significantly differ from those by quantum mechanics. Experimental results evidently refute the theorem's predictions for these theories and favour those of quantum mechanics. The conclusions are philosophically startling: either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists, or dramatically revise out concept of space-time. - J F Clauser and A Shimony
http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/41/12/002/refs (http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/41/12/002/refs)

Of course what is good Atheist Apologetics video without a good ol’ reference to Deepak Chopra at the end eh? Logical Fallacy Number Seven! (or is that eight I lost count) Ending with “Will you really trust someone who spews as much bullshit as he does?”

This is a logical fallacy as follows:

A has provided evidence for position X
Deepak Chopra states X is correct
Deepak Chopra is widely regarded as a snake oil salesman
Therefore, A's evidence is false.

This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by A, it merely notes that Deepak Chopra, who is a discredited figure, agrees with position X. This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that the arguer is aware of the evidence given by A.

But worse the statement “will you really trust someone...” is telling. You all seem to be looking for someone to trust. Someone who will do the thinking for you and tell you what you can and can’t believe. You have shunned religion and in it’s place you have embraced Realism/Materialism and the High Priests of the scientific community. You are no better, no more superior, no more intelligent, no more free thinkers than any other scared human being who clings to beliefs to feel safe and not have to admit ignorance. You are just as religious as any Christian.

Look how you want to discredit people providing information but so quickly ignore the information itself! Look how often you want to discredit the messengers and ignore the message itself! You keep addressing the people, but I’m telling you to address the evidence!

I’m done with these cute little youtube videos. They are a waste of time. Stop looking for people to make arguments for you. Stop looking for someone to think for you. Look at the evidence yourself and think for yourselves!
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 08:28:31 PM
Someone please describe the difference between "Philosophical Realism" and "Physical/Classical Realism". I have been repeated accused of siting that Physical/Classical Realism has been conclusively disproven but extrapolating erroneously that this means that Philosophical Realism is disproven along with it.

If there is some huge difference between the two, so that one can be untrue and the other can be true simultaneously, please describe the difference.

^^^^^ This Question is still unanswered.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 06, 2014, 08:49:21 PM
I am not sure I understand what you are after. It seems you are either implying that there is no difference, or making a statement that you cannot be bothered to look it up yourself.

Quote
But I contend that [...]
It seems that you contend a lot of things, but are consistently light on evidence or sound reasoning.
Quote
Look at the evidence yourself and think for yourselves!
The issue at play here, and the reason we are talking right past you, is the fact that you simply refuse to even begin to consider that what you think is evidence for your world view, is in fact, none at all.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 06, 2014, 09:12:45 PM
You wrote, "they are all detected by machinery that we read." Exactly! And the Quantum Eraser experiments prove that if the machinery detects and then erases so that "we do not read" then we get an interference pattern just as if no measurement ever took place! This is the whole point of the Quantum Eraser Experiment!
Close but no cigar. It doesn't matter if "we" read the results, it only matters if the detectors or on.

Quote
You then say "the waveform collapse occurs whether we look at the machines results or just leave the machines on." Sources please?
Right here:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf)

It's been in front of you all along. Nowhere in that paper does it say a human observer must be involved. You just assumed that part as you do every time an "observer" is mentioned. Detectors are not people.

Turns out "the little girl" is smarter than you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW-AemjSVGY&list=PLg-OiIIbfPj29p75wF3P5Fqnb1UGyYc5S
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 09:34:56 PM
Close but no cigar. It doesn't matter if "we" read the results, it only matters if the detectors or on.
Right here:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf)

It's been in front of you all along. Nowhere in that paper does it say a human observer must be involved. You just assumed that part as you do every time an "observer" is mentioned. Detectors are not people.

LOL okay, I'll bite, break it down for me then...

The detecter makes a measurement, does the wave function collapse at that point?

Quote
The detecting mechanism that has tagged the which-path information (i.e., the generation of an entangled pair at either region A or region B) has already been accomplished, but it has not yet yielded up its which-path information to any observer.

At this point since, "the detecting mechanism" has already "tagged the which-path information" according to you "the detecters are on" and "the non-human observation" has already taken place.... So the wave function is collapsed right? No matter what happens after this point we will always get no interference pattern since the "observation" has already taken place right? I mean "detectors aren't people" so the wave function is collapsed already right?
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2014, 09:47:15 PM
Belief in god does not necessitate religion in any way shape or form.
Since there is no proof of your god existing, it's safe to say that your conclusion is patently wrong.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 06, 2014, 09:47:59 PM
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 06, 2014, 10:10:22 PM
LOL okay, I'll bite, break it down for me then...

The detecter makes a measurement, does the wave function collapse at that point?

At this point since, "the detecting mechanism" has already "tagged the which-path information" according to you "the detecters are on" and "the non-human observation" has already taken place.... So the wave function is collapsed right? No matter what happens after this point we will always get no interference pattern since the "observation" has already taken place right? I mean "detectors aren't people" so the wave function is collapsed already right?

What you are talking about here is retrocausality. You have not mentioned a thing about whether it's the detectors or human observers who cause this effect. The "choice" to erase the information is just as easily made by random generator and the wave form will either collapse or not based on that random choice whether humans are present or not.
Furthermore, the consensus contemporary position is that retrocausality is not necessary to explain the phenomenon of delayed choice. It's explained in here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW-AemjSVGY&list=PLg-OiIIbfPj29p75wF3P5Fqnb1UGyYc5S
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 11:29:16 PM
What you are talking about here is retrocausality. You have not mentioned a thing about whether it's the detectors or human observers who cause this effect. The "choice" to erase the information is just as easily made by random generator and the wave form will either collapse or not based on that random choice whether humans are present or not.
Furthermore, the consensus contemporary position is that retrocausality is not necessary to explain the phenomenon of delayed choice. It's explained in here.

 :eek: LOL dude i'm not watching any more of your cute youtube videos. this is ridiculous... that a random generator chooses to erase or not has nothing to do with the fact that when it erases we get an interference pattern just as we do when there is no observation made. The only logical conclusion one can come to is that wave function collapse happens only when a conscious observer obtains the which-path information. sigh....

I'm pretty sure I'm done with this. Carry on as you were. sorry I interrupted you all....

Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Moralnihilist on May 07, 2014, 12:25:57 AM
^^^^^ This Question is still unanswered.


So is the request that you actually PROVIDE PROOF of the bullshit you post, or shut the fuck up.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Jason78 on May 07, 2014, 01:01:07 AM
And what did you learn? Casparov is mental, or not? Solitary

All I learned was that things still exist even if you're not looking at them.  But I already knew that.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 07, 2014, 08:09:20 AM
that a random generator chooses to erase or not has nothing to do with the fact that when it erases we get an interference pattern just as we do when there is no observation made.
It has everything to do with the fact that a human is not necessary to cause or not cause the interference pattern.

Quote
The only logical conclusion one can come to is that wave function collapse happens only when a conscious observer obtains the which-path information. sigh....
Wrong conclusion! The correct conclusion is that the waveform collapses when the which-path information is obtained by a device. It doesn't matter if a conscious observer is present or not.

Like many religious people you would rather believe a comfortable lie than accept a hard truth.
So here it is Casparov: The material universe doesn't care what you think.



Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 07, 2014, 09:16:37 AM
For those interested in Bell's theorem and the EPR, I have a series of blogs on this;

Three Degrees of Spookiness in Entanglement (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2009/06/quantum-entanglement-there-are-three.html)

Quantum Entanglement Demystified (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2010/08/qe-demystified.html)

Spooky Action at a Distance and Bell's Theorem Revisited (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/spooky-action-at-distance-and-bells.html)

Description of Reality - The EPR Paper Revisited (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/10/description-of-reality-part-i-epr-paper.html)



I also have a blog on entanglement.

http://soi.blogspot.ca/2011/02/two-slit-experiment.html


Also, I have another blog on the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, which is NOT the standard Delayed-Choice-Quantum-Eraser experiment, but comes close to it.

http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/05/machzehnder-interferometer-particle-or.html



If anyone is interested in the physics, let me know. No funking question on the philosophy - that's for the fucking morons who need to fill their empty lives. :pirate:
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 02:12:43 PM
It has everything to do with the fact that a human is not necessary to cause or not cause the interference pattern.
Wrong conclusion! The correct conclusion is that the waveform collapses when the which-path information is obtained by a device. It doesn't matter if a conscious observer is present or not.

Like many religious people you would rather believe a comfortable lie than accept a hard truth.
So here it is Casparov: The material universe doesn't care what you think.

oh jeez you win i never thought of that. okay have a nice life.  :wall:
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Icarus on May 07, 2014, 02:57:16 PM
oh jeez you win i never thought of that. okay have a nice life.  :wall:

You say it sarcastically, but I'm sure that is the case.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 07, 2014, 10:04:47 PM
i never thought of that.

No kidding.

Quote
First line in the wikipedia entry on Wave Function Collapse:

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate after interaction with a measuring apparatus

Quote
First line in the wikipedia entry on Observer (quatum physics):

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and observable with what can be measured.

The only reason I can see why you would not have thought of that is that you are far to preoccupied with confirmation bias instead of accepting what can and cannot be proven by these experiments.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 11:10:14 PM
No kidding.

The only reason I can see why you would not have thought of that is that you are far to preoccupied with confirmation bias instead of accepting what can and cannot be proven by these experiments.

What I can tell you is that these wikipedia entries are at variance with experimental evidence. If you want to believe wikipedia over the peer reviewed papers themselves then go ahead. You are looking so hard to find anything and anyone to agree with what you want to hear, and now you've found wikipedia, I typically reliable source of information. You are looking every where except at the evidence itself. It is obvious I am not going to be able to convince you via the actual experiments and the actual results of those experiments as recorded in the scientific papers themselves, so there is no use arguing with you.

What I can tell you is that I for one don't believe everything I read on wikipedia, and if wikipedia says something that disagrees with hard evidence, I go with the hard evidence. If you do not have the intellectual capacity to assess and understand the evidence itself, it makes since that you look for wikipedia and youtube users to do the assessing for you. That you believe them over me is not a surprise. I am telling you that the evidence does not agree with your world view, obviously you will look for any reason to dismiss me entirely. It seems you have found it in several places.

My only hope to convince anyone is to have a conversation about the evidence itself and come to a common understanding of what the conclusions of the experiments mean. If you are not willing or able to consider the actual experiments then I have no reason to speak with you. I'll present to an experimental result, you'll look up a definition on wikipedia or tell me to watch a youtube video by some girl from Australia. There is no hope in this conversation. So uh...

YOU WIN!!! I WAS WRONG!! I completely misinterpreted all of those scientific experiments and what they were actually saying was that "observation" by a measuring device always causes the collapse of the wave function and even when the which-path information is erased it still collapses the wave function every time! Duh! pfft what was I thinking? Locality was never violated. Causality was never violated. Both Bell's and Leggett's inequalities have never been violated. Realism should not be abandoned and Naive Realism is compatible with all of the results. All of these experiments actually prove that the entities described by the theory exist independently of all measurement and observation. Realism is true!! Materialism is totally compatible with Quantum Mechanics Predictions!! You win!!

So here's what we should do: I'll leave you alone and you can continue to believe that Materialism is true and 19th century Newtonian physics is all you need to know about the world.

And while you continue through life as Naive Realist I'll move on with mine? Cool? Cool.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Moralnihilist on May 07, 2014, 11:23:19 PM
So here's what we should do: I'll leave you alone and you can continue to believe that Materialism is true and 19th century Newtonian physics is all you need to know about the world.

And while you continue through life as Naive Realist I'll move on with mine? Cool? Cool.

Why don't you just go ahead and provide PROOF THAT THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE PEDDLING IS TRUE. Otherwise why don't you go ahead and take a long walk on a short pier.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 08, 2014, 12:31:15 AM
Have we got to the point where Caspaorov actually shows us the emprical and undeniable evidence god exists? No? Later.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2014, 01:17:42 AM
So here's what we should do: I'll leave you alone and you can continue to believe that Materialism is true and 19th century Newtonian physics is all you need to know about the world.
http://boldblade.deviantart.com/art/Hopeless-Cirno-157008060
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 08, 2014, 08:42:26 AM
Why don't you just go ahead and provide PROOF THAT THE BULLSHIT YOU ARE PEDDLING IS TRUE. Otherwise why don't you go ahead and take a long walk on a short pier.
He can't, because all he has is the limp-wristed results of a couple of experiments that are elaborations on an old problem in quantum mechanics that do not offer anything beyond what has already been suggested by people way smarter than him (all his quantum eraser and delayed choice malarkey are simply elaborations on the double slit experiment). No puzzles are really solved by his "theory" — it's just admitting defeat and consigning oneself to forever be unable to understand. Nuts to that! Furthermore, even his "idealist" alternative reduces his god to a mindless number-cruncher running the universe, a position that is at best only cosmetically different from the materialist world he rails against.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 08, 2014, 09:41:46 AM
Have we got to the point where Casparov actually shows us the emprical and undeniable evidence god exists? No? Later.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Berati on May 08, 2014, 05:44:38 PM
What I can tell you is that these wikipedia entries are at variance with experimental evidence. If you want to believe wikipedia over the peer reviewed papers themselves then go ahead. You are looking so hard to find anything and anyone to agree with what you want to hear, and now you've found wikipedia, I typically reliable source of information. You are looking every where except at the evidence itself. It is obvious I am not going to be able to convince you via the actual experiments and the actual results of those experiments as recorded in the scientific papers themselves, so there is no use arguing with you.

What I can tell you is that I for one don't believe everything I read on wikipedia, and if wikipedia says something that disagrees with hard evidence, I go with the hard evidence. If you do not have the intellectual capacity to assess and understand the evidence itself, it makes since that you look for wikipedia and youtube users to do the assessing for you. That you believe them over me is not a surprise. I am telling you that the evidence does not agree with your world view, obviously you will look for any reason to dismiss me entirely. It seems you have found it in several places.
You're rant here might make sense if I hadn't already referenced the experiment you listed.

It's been in front of you all along. Nowhere in that paper does it say a human observer must be involved. You just assumed that part as you do every time an "observer" is mentioned. Detectors are not people.


Quote
So here's what we should do: I'll leave you alone and you can continue to believe that Materialism is true and 19th century Newtonian physics is all you need to know about the world.
And while you continue through life as Naive Realist I'll move on with mine? Cool? Cool.

Uhh no, not cool. I will not sit idly by while you spread lies that science has proven your wild interpretation of QM as "The Truth"

Everyone can see the results of these experiments but the INTERPRETATION of what goes on is no where near proven. Understand?
And there are a great many interpretations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
While all the greatest minds in science are debating these interpretations you arrogantly declare the whole matter resolved. No one is buying it and no one should.

QM raises as many questions as it answers but you simply steam roll over all of that with your consciousness of the gaps argument. Not one of these experiments proves that a conscious observer is necessary for QM to function the way it does. Not one.


Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 08, 2014, 05:57:35 PM
Have we got to the point where Caspaorov actually shows us the.......... never mind.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Shol'va on May 08, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
Casparov has a number of challenges that were brought up which, as of this writing, remain unadressed in the debate he insisted on having.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4514.msg1013203#msg1013203

At this time, it seems that his entire world view is built upon a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2014, 08:37:40 PM
At this time, it seems that his entire world view is built upon a non-sequitur.
I've known that since the guy showed up. I'm not sure if everyone else is just slow on the uptake or if they actually enjoy dealing with idiots.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on May 08, 2014, 10:38:42 PM
^^ I'm always willing to give someone a chance. However, Casparov quickly wore down any of the goodwill I gave him. After that, I just wanted to mock him with the full Imperial Smackdown treatment. Of course, people like him have protective sloped foreheads.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on May 08, 2014, 10:55:33 PM
^^ I'm always willing to give someone a chance.
So did I. He got his one page, and then I wrote him off.
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: Jason78 on May 09, 2014, 01:13:48 PM
Have we got to the point where Casparov actually shows us the emprical and undeniable evidence god exists? No? Later.

For the last time, NO!

Now quit asking or I'll turn this thread around and we'll be going straight back to 4chan!
Title: Re: Bell's Theorum.
Post by: stromboli on May 09, 2014, 01:37:30 PM
For the last time, NO!

Now quit asking or I'll turn this thread around and we'll be going straight back to 4chan!

Now don't get all sensitive about it.  :naughty: