I will introduce you to Stephon Alexander, & Ediho Lokanga. Both guys are physicists and dwell intensely on the observer moment side of things. Let's say you may not, LC doesn't, but these dudes do! Dr. Stephon Alexander | Faculty Profile | Chapman University
https://euclid.academia.edu/EdihoLokanga Now these guys integrate conscious observation with the universe.You can hate it, but, can you disprove it, say I? Any, viewers here should consider adding them to their reading list. -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2022 7:31 am Subject: Re: Apparently objective quantum wave function collapse doesn't occur On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:01 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > In all cases, if the which-way information is preserved, no interference is > seen. True. > But if the which-way information is quantum erased, interference is visible. > Also true .... but then… why would you say "I, too, would expect to see > interference bands" if Deutsch's experiment was actually performed? > Because no which-way measurement is actually made in the Deutsch set-up. Then why does the document insist that there was and why does it keep on insisting no matter how many times the experiment is repeated? Do you think the universe is inherently a liar and NEVER tells the truth? >> I stopped reading Hossenfelder sometime ago when she started defending >> Superdeterminism; yes it can explain all the weirdness in the quantum world >> but it requires, quite literally, the greatest violation of Occam's razor >> that is possible in order to do so. I would even go so far as to say >> Superdeterminism requires an INFINITE violation of Occam's razor, and that >> is not a word I use very often. For that reason I don't see how any rational >> person could take Superdeterminism seriously. > Belief in superdeterminism, or Zoroastrianism, or whatever, does not mean > that everything a person writes is nonsense. To believe so is an example of > the very worst form of argumentum ad hominem Don't give me that crap! Are you really claiming that I don't have the right to stop reading somebody if I choose to? It's relevant because Many Worlds and Superdeterminism are competitors, and Superdeterminism is as utterly ridiculous as saying "because of God" is the answer to all of life's mysteries. > (or feminem in Hossenfelder's case). If I criticize a physicist who happens to be black or a woman that does not necessarily mean that I'm a racist or a misogynist, and to claim it does is a very fine example of an argument by ad hominem. > Besides, Sean Carroll gives essentially the same explanation from a > many-worlds perspective: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/?s=quantum+erase If it really is "essentially the same explanation" then obviously it does not contradict Deutsch's proposed experiment because Carroll is one of the most vigorous advocates of Everett's many worlds idea, he wrote an entire book about it, a very good book. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis 8gx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32zdnsN7rPbnrEFUAW1UPq3SHdJ9-THjBYZACSeNxyrw%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/234429135.244825.1666810648696%40mail.yahoo.com.
