Author Topic: Bell's Theorum.  (Read 17432 times)

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #60 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.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #61 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.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #62 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
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #63 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.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #64 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?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 06:21:38 PM by Shol'va »

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2014, 08:10:45 PM »
Why Quatum mechanics does not debunk Materialism


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 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

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 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 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 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...
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #66 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

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!
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #67 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.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #68 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.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 08:53:25 PM by Shol'va »

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #69 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

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.

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #70 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

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?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 09:41:13 PM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5661
  • Total likes: 2422
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Sargon Lore
Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #71 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.
Black lives matter, feminism is good, religion is bullshit, and if you disagree with me on any of these points you are a fucking moron.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5661
  • Total likes: 2422
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Sargon Lore
Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #72 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:


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, 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.
Black lives matter, feminism is good, religion is bullshit, and if you disagree with me on any of these points you are a fucking moron.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #73 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.

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Casparov

Re: Bell's Theorum.
« Reply #74 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....

“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein