[demalk (OP)]

According to quantum physics, the observer effect in the double slit experiment is caused by the existence of the ‘which path’ information. Ron Garrett argues in his 2011 Google Talk that mathematically speaking there is no difference between ‘observation’ and ‘quantum entanglement’ – the information ‘observed’, or rather, ‘observable’, is hard-coded in the fabric of the universe in the form of an entangled subsystem. The observation/information is just as ‘real’ and as ‘physical’ as the observer and the observed, and only when this hard-copy of the ‘which path’ information is destroyed from the fabric of the universe, does our interference pattern show up. In other words: observation = information = a quantum entangled subsystem.

If by 'observing' we are enforcing an act of quantum entanglement onto an entangled system, wouldn't we expect to mess up said system? Isn’t it then obvious that the universe is one giant quantum computer, that matter, energy and what we call observation are all different expressions of fundamental bits of information, stored as entangled quantum subsystems within the quantum entangled universe itself? Matter = Energy = Spacetime = Information = Observation = A gigantic network of interconnected quantum entangled subsystems that is our entire universe?

[yor_on]

At a first glance.
Seems possible to me. The main importance might be what you deem to be 'real' in this context, the outcomes or what exist before one. We're all observers as well as observables, but where do we set the limit? Is a 'photon' a observable? Its outcome is but the 'entity' itself is nothing we can observe other than through its effects.
=

Although calling it a quantum computer would place us where?
Catalysts maybe?

The point may be that if everything becomes entangled, able to 'act' and be 'acted on' then what place does consciousness have in such a universe? Why the need for it? A coincidence :)
=
" If by 'observing' we are enforcing an act of quantum entanglement onto an entangled system, wouldn't we expect to mess up said system? " Well, that depends on how you think of it. Are you defining consciousness as the only thing able to interact for 'change'? Otherwise it's a mess already, as everything that can interact already interacts. Don't need humans for that one unless you apply some anthropic principle on the universes existence.

[demalk (OP)]

The main importance might be what you deem to be 'real' in this context, the outcomes or what exist before one.

By 'real' I mean both exist in the same ontological category.

'We're all observers as well as observables, but where do we set the limit? Is a 'photon' a observable? Its outcome is but the 'entity' itself is nothing we can observe other than through its effects.'

I believe the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment disproves that statement.

Although calling it a quantum computer would place us where? Catalysts maybe?

Information! It places us as information, just like light, energy and everything else in the universe. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that matter exhibits the same particle-wave duality as light.

The point may be that if everything becomes entangled, able to 'act' and be 'acted on' then what place does consciousness have in such a universe? Why the need for it? A coincidence

Not a coincidence, a very unavoidable consequence of evolution on earth. The role of consciousness in the double slit experiment, i.e. the role of consciousness in particle-wave duality is a mistake. The observer doesn't need to be conscious at all.

Are you defining consciousness as the only thing able to interact for 'change'?

Consciousness is not the key. Information is. The information needs to be stored. So far we have not found a 'natural' way for the information to get stored, other than a conscious being creating a setting in which the information is stored. But once such setting is created, for example a computer that registers the 'which path' information, it becomes irrelevant whether a conscious being 'observes' that information. The fact that it is stored, is enough for the observer effect to emerge.

[yor_on]

Then we're agreeing to disagree I think :)

I would define everything as observing each other. Something 'bumps' into something else creating a entanglement, no consciousnesses needed for that one. And the 'bump' change things in its interaction. As for whether information needs to be stored? I would have to understand how you think there to answer.

Let 's put it this way then. The universe is a 'storage mechanism', and I don't expect it to need consciousness for doing so, any more than I would expect my harddrive to need it. What I find interesting is 'free will', but that's not about storing information, although it involves it naturally, in making choices. Your definition is different though, isn't it?
=

"
    'We're all observers as well as observables, but where do we set the limit? Is a 'photon' a observable? Its outcome is but the 'entity' itself is nothing we can observe other than through its effects.'


I believe the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment disproves that statement.
                  "

How?

[demalk (OP)]

What I am saying about information needing to be stored to create the observer effect is not my invention. It has been confirmed over and over again by the various versions of the double slit experiment that have been conducted over the past 200 years and documented in great detail. Wikipedia has a good explanation. Can't post the link

The way I see it, it is not my mind but the body of research on particle-wave duality that you would need to familiarise yourself better with.

You are obfuscating the definition of the word 'observation', and enlarging it to include the meaning of motion and other things. If a rock could observe like we can, i.e. create information like we can, we would always find the observer effect just by the sheer presence of matter in the experimental lab. Since we only find the observer effect when we deliberately create it, we can reasonably conclude that there is a distinction to be made there. We or our computer or our bucket of marbles which we've set up to record the 'which path' information actually creates information that would not have been created otherwise. Your 'bumping' particle does not 'observe' like that.

[yor_on]

You're thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation I suspect? When I'm talking about 'observers' I do have a wider definition, just as you think. I don't lock it to consciousness, because that would exclude most of the natural world around us. What I think you are referring to is the idea of a 'free will', meaning making a conscious choice, somehow changing the way the universe present itself. Doesn't that taste of hubris to you? It does to me.
==

And rereading you, I'm not discussing 'free will' when I refer to 'observers'. I'm just stating that a 'bump' will make a change just as good as any human observer. Maybe it's not the Copenhagen interpretation you're referring to though, as I also see you write

" Not a coincidence, a very unavoidable consequence of evolution on earth. The role of consciousness in the double slit experiment, i.e. the role of consciousness in particle-wave duality is a mistake. The observer doesn't need to be conscious at all."

That confuses me slightly as you later say

"Since we only find the observer effect when we deliberately create it, we can reasonably conclude that there is a distinction to be made there."

In fact I do agree to them, there is a distinction to be made between consciousness and free will versus 'dead matter' and I do expect physical laws, properties and principles to be the same for everything existing

[yor_on]

Then we come to information. This is where you will need to explain as good as you can what you see that as. Otherwise we will be lost in a quagmire.

[demalk (OP)]

Ah, I can see the apparent contradiction in my words as well as the source of our misunderstanding, which I believe now is what has happened here. Before I clarify; first Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen interpretation is arguably the silliest, most self-confirming thing that ever emerged from modern science - it is the quantum equivalent of what we would call in the macroscopic world 'to give up'. Furthermore, it was created out of ideological reasons rather than scientific integrity; to prove that nothing is certain at that time was a very logical and appealing way of rebelling against the conservative establishment, which maintained that everything is ultimately and fundamentally knowable. It is just unfortunate that this trend had caught on with such a brilliant audience like Bohr and friends, who managed to force its quantum equivalent upon the world for 100 years to come. It was certainly not my intention to represent this view. I am a fundamental determinist, for short

As to the apparent contradiction in my words, I believe it comes down to the semantic difference between 'consciousness' and 'intent', i.e. the distinction between a direct impact of consciousness on reality, or just the ability of some intelligent being to create an experiment that shows a more fundamental mechanism at play. The 'observer', i.e. the mechanism through which the information is created, doesn't need to be conscious. A computer creates the observer effect just by storing the 'which path' information as bits on a hard disk, triggered by a sensor that either does or doesn't send a signal to the computer as a photon passes through the left or the right slit. Whether or not a conscious being then logs into the computer to actually observe the information, is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the information is observable. As long as that is the case, as long as the information is stored or restorable somewhere in the universe, in whatever way, the interference pattern is replaced by 2 distinct dots of light. Logging in and checking the information on the computer doesn't affect the outcome, the particle pattern has already emerged. If however we would destroy the hard drive before retrieving the information on it, this would in retrospect affect our experiment results, and we would once again find the interference pattern. As if the photons had corrected their behaviour in retrospect. This too has nothing to do with consciousness: we could leave the decision whether or not to store the information and when to store it up to the computer itself, or whichever other non-conscious system - the quantum eraser experiment uses a setup of crystals and mirrors - and still the same effect would occur. This doesn't prove the computer, crystal and mirror are conscious of course, but rather that the existence of the which path information, whether it be in the present or at any time in the future of the universe, is key to the behavioural change we see in photons, electrons and indeed entire molecules of matter.

However, and this is where the distinction comes in: this so-called 'observer' effect does not occur naturally. Imagine a sunrise where the first beams of light are just reaching over from the other side of the horizon, and the light passes through 2 tiny openings in, say, a tree, and shines onto an otherwise dark surface behind it, say, a rock. This will always produce an interference pattern (i.e. no observer effect). The 'which path' information isn't being stored. We create the 'observer' effect in our labs by deliberately storing the information. This is where 'consciousness' or rather 'intent' comes in: someone or something has to have created a setup which then stores the which path information of the photons. The setup itself doesn't need to be conscious, the 'observation' itself doesn't need to be conscious. But the circumstances required to create this particular isolated effect, do not occur naturally so intent and intelligence are needed to create the experiment. That is not to say that intelligence or ‘consciousness’ directly create the 'observer effect'.

For that reason 'observer effect' is wrong. The concept of 'observation' is used erroneously. It should be called an 'information effect'. The observer and his/its features isn't key here, the information that is created in the act, is key. We needed a conscious being to produce this lab effect, but the implications that  the results carry for the whole of reality have nothing to do with consciousness. It is the existence of the information itself that counts.

The argument also works the other way around. We can put a conscious observer, say, you, right in front of the two slits. You could consciously observe the light going through them. You would look as carefully as you can and focus your entire 'consciousness' on the two slits as the light travels through. But since your internal machinery isn't equipped to process such detail, you still have no idea through which slit each photon travelled. The 'which path' information isn't physically stored in your brain and so the observer effect doesn't occur, even though there was a conscious observer watching the whole time. 'Consciousness' has nothing to do with the result. It is just that intent was required to create this specific experiment.

This distinction is extremely important. The misinterpretation that conscious observation directly affects reality would imply that 'consciousness' has some sort of key role in reality. This feeds into the rhetoric of religion mongers and is used very often to imply the existence of God. The idea that the existence of information is what underlies reality, has far less religious, and far more scientific potential. It just means that information, a seemingly abstract concept, perhaps less abstract that 'love' or 'self-loathing', but surely more abstract than 'matter' or 'light', actually proves to be as real as matter and light at the most fundamental level of existence. This puts the 'building blocks' of information in the same ontological category as the 'building blocks' of all matter and energy, whatever those may be. This doesn't say anything about 'consciousness' or 'free will' or 'observation'. All it says is that the fundamental building blocks of information exist in the same reality, are just as 'real', as those of matter and energy. Or rather; the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are just as 'real' as those of information.

Now, taking our conversation thus far into account, I would actually be surprised if you and I are in disagreement about this. Essentially you are saying the same thing as I am (correct me if I'm wrong). Except you are using the term 'observation' to describe what I call 'information'. If you want to use 'observation' in the way you are trying to, you would always have to build in a disclaimer that you don't mean conscious observation to prevent misunderstanding like, I believe, has occurred here. Because of the reasons explained above, i.e. the risk of implying religious or spiritual interpretations of reality, or attributing consciousness to inanimate matter (unfortunately the latter is not an uncommon view), i.e. the risk of obfuscating what is actually going on and therefore interesting to discuss, I believe 'information' is far more accurate.

I conclude that 'observation' as you are using the term, has just as little to do with consciousness as the 'observation' in the 'observer effect'. Neither of us consider 'consciousness' to be implied by 'observation'. So technically speaking, and upon closer inspection, I don't think you are wrong in how you describe the world. Our differences to me seem to be mainly semantic. Unless I am missing something here

[yor_on]

Ok

There are some things I wonder about reading you

How do you consider 'time', 'illusionary' or 'real'
Or better perhaps, what is it (time) to you?

And information, there's this example I'm sure you've seen, writing a formula on a block of ice. Does that information still exist as the ice is gone?
==

Btw: I will reread you and hopefully find some more questions

[yor_on]

And yes, I think we're in a agreement on the importance (or non importance:) of 'consciousness' to 'create' the world. It's neither here nor there, now, as I read you presenting your thoughts consciousness is something evolutionary 'new', but definitely not necessary for a 'Big Bang', unless we question time, in which case you can create a merry go round of cause and effect, the cat biting its tail etc etc.

[yor_on]

Then again, we introduce a lot of new ideas into this world. Like 'ethics' for example, could there be a entropy to ideas? Are we a ordered system of thoughts?

[puppypower]

Most of the information we have, is second hand or indirect information. For example, if we look out at the universe, our predominate source of information is based on the measured energy, coming from matter. It is not based on the actual matter that is the source of the information. We don't have core samples of neutron stars. We infer this from second hand energy emissions. Even if we did have a neutron star sample, we would use instruments that reflect and absorb energy to investigate the sample, which is still hand information.

As another example, we can't directly measure the core of the sun, but will attempt to infer the core from a combination of theory and second hand energy information. This is where consciousness comes in. Consciousness provides the bridge between the observable second hand information the more fickle first hand information. Consciousness develops the theoretical platform by which we extrapolate the second hand information, to infer the primary information. If the theory is wrong, then we can unknowingly create first hand information in the image of our imagination.

The earth used to be flat based on this affect. We all saw the same light reflections of the earth that we still see today. The bridge was different to the primary.

Another example, to see this last observation, in real time, is political information. Depending on your political orientation, each side can look at the same second hand data; raw observational data. However, each side will infer different primary sources of information. Second hand data is self standing, but by itself, it is not a 100% reflection of the primary. There is always room for creative conscious and unconscious liberty.

Consciousness can alter the experiment, but simply changing the theory, used to bridge the invisible primary information with the more obvious secondary information we all can see. For example, the primitive person may interpret the color change of the camp fire; variable energy emissions, as coming from their conversation with the gods. The scientist sees this same secondary information, but changes the bridge theory to the primary information, into mineral salt emissions  that lacks divine consciousness. This change of theory can breaks an unconscious bridge called projection, so the future second hand data, may appear to depart in terms of coherency; sensory expectation.

[yor_on]

well, reading it I can't help but thinking of HUP (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There is no way to get a 'pure information' of anything as the 'touching' will introduce a uncertainty. And I think that's a true principle of how the universe 'works'. Inferring as it might be also reminds me of 'weak experiments' which have gained a strong popularity over the years. And the idea behind I consider to come from the use of statistics, and the idea of a statistical significance.
=

sorry I have this habit of trying to make the sentences more palatable to me, and that will make me return to sentences of mine that's not correctly expressed. I will blame that on English being a second language for me, for now at least :)
=

If one think of it Quantum mechanics introduce a concept where the 'net' sum of any given  system either hide, or if one prefer, 'remove' those uncertainties (decoherence). As in the microscopic assembled into something macroscopic. The chair will keep on being a chair no matter who comes into the room, touching it, etc. And that has to me a close resemblance to the idea of how mathematics and physics are expected to treat statistics.

https://www.physics.drexel.edu/~tim/open/main/node2.html

[demalk (OP)]

'How do you consider 'time', 'illusionary' or 'real' Or better perhaps, what is it (time) to you?'

Great question. I've always thought of time as a non-concept. Just the order in which events happen and therefore not a real thing at all. Relativity seems to confirm that point: it turns out that this sequence of events we call 'time' is subjective to the observer. Sure, my tomorrow is also your tomorrow, and not today or yesterday. But that is just the sequence of events from our perspective, because on a cosmic scale we are really, really close together and travelling at the exact same velocity.

The delayed choice double slit experiment shows us that the existence of information outperforms time every time. i.e. the existence of the 'which path' information in the future affects results in the past, so whether or not the event of the experiment has already passed from our perspective, it clearly has not from the perspective of the photons in our experiment. Which makes sense according to Einstein, because they are travelling so fast that they don't experience any time at all. To them all events happen instantaneously. The entire universe, to a photon, is instantaneous. Certainly a photon would argue that time is an illusion created only if you travel very slowly.

Information on the other hand, provided it is actual quantum information, is 'real' as real can get. Which brings us to the next point.

'And information, there's this example I'm sure you've seen, writing a formula on a block of ice. Does that information still exist as the ice is gone?'

Simply put: you could write 1/1=1 as often as you'd like, you would not be adding any new information to the universe whatsoever. You would just be rearranging molecules to express a symbolic meaning to the software of the brain of some other viewer, hoping that you can create a somewhat accurate copy in their mind of the idea you intend to convey. 1/1=1 is and will always remain retrievable. If we all die tomorrow, and a new civilisation emerges 1.5 billion lightyears from now on planet Gnorfbjalg, they will be able to retrieve 1/1=1. They probably won't use the same symbols, but the concept itself never leaves the universe.

When I speak of the information stored in our double slit experiments, this information actually adds something to the structure of the universe that wasn't there before, and therefore something is actually removed when it gets destroyed. Something that can never be retrieved or deduced in the future because that would retrospectively alter the result of our experiment, and we've already determined in the present that that isn't happening.

So: storing information in the universe is something that happens at quantum scale. Just scratching a series of symbols in ice, only rearranges the ice molecules and doesn't add any quantum information to the universe. The two types of information we are speaking of do not exist in the same ontological category. The which path information in the double slit experiment exists in the same category as the building blocks of matter itself. The 'information' you're trying to convey with your formula is just a copy. '1/1=1' cannot be created or erased. Which path information can.

[smart]

This distinction is extremely important. The misinterpretation that conscious observation directly affects reality would imply that 'consciousness' has some sort of key role in reality. This feeds into the rhetoric of religion mongers and is used very often to imply the existence of God. The idea that the existence of information is what underlies reality, has far less religious, and far more scientific potential. It just means that information, a seemingly abstract concept, perhaps less abstract that 'love' or 'self-loathing', but surely more abstract than 'matter' or 'light', actually proves to be as real as matter and light at the most fundamental level of existence. This puts the 'building blocks' of information in the same ontological category as the 'building blocks' of all matter and energy, whatever those may be. This doesn't say anything about 'consciousness' or 'free will' or 'observation'. All it says is that the fundamental building blocks of information exist in the same reality, are just as 'real', as those of matter and energy. Or rather; the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are just as 'real' as those of information.

I strongly believe that consciousness and information are two sides of the same coin. Without consciousness, there's no information. Thus, the key difference between information and matter is that the former is not physically real. Information is a pure abstraction of our intelligence to define what is real. Hence, if information and consciousness are tied together in a quantum superposition, then we can assume safely that life is essentially conscious.

tk   

[jeffreyH]

The uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen interpretation were brilliant leaps. That is just how quantum mechanics works. It is easy to dismiss things that are poorly understood.

[demalk (OP)]

The uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen interpretation were brilliant leaps. That is just how quantum mechanics works. It is easy to dismiss things that are poorly understood.

They were brilliant leaps, agreed. But there have been brilliant leaps in the past that turned out to be wrong. Still brilliant, still extremely valuable, invaluable even for the subsequent discovery of something better, but wrong nevertheless.

It is easy to dismiss things that are poorly understood, agreed again. However, it is also 'easy' to say of something which is poorly understood: 'it's just not understandable', which is essentially what Bohr, Heisenberg & co. claim. I put 'easy' in brackets because I understand of course that they didn't make this claim lightly, they were some of the most brilliant minds ever to think about anything and they spent a whole lot of time thinking about this. So it would be tempting to just say 'they were probably right'. Which is exactly what happened to DeBroglie when his obviously much more sensible idea of a pilot wave function-based non-local hidden variable succumbed to the political pressure and verbal and intellectual superiority of the Copenhagen camp. Even when Bohm went on to finish his theory decades later, he was already brainwashed past the point of no return and rejected his own theory.

I was told that pilot wave models are making their way back into the limelight, slowly but surely, and i really hope that this is true. Even if they turn out to be wrong. It seems to me that 'its just unknowable' is a stage we need to get past. If we ever come to the same conclusion again, fine. But what have we got to lose? For now, lets just assume that we can know at least a bit more than we thought we could know 100 years ago, and see where it takes us. We can now do things that Bohr and Einstein couldn't even have begun to imagine. Like all genius minds in the past, present and future they were limited by the context of their zeitgeist. Let the minds of today, both smart and stupid and everything in between, have a crack at it. Nothing bad can possibly come from that. In any case it beats having us thinking about burning bushes and miraculous prophets all day long

[demalk (OP)]

I strongly believe that consciousness and information are two sides of the same coin. Without consciousness, there's no information. Thus, the key difference between information and matter is that the former is not physically real. Information is a pure abstraction of our intelligence to define what is real. Hence, if information and consciousness are tied together in a quantum superposition, then we can assume safely that life is essentially conscious.   

You say so little, yet there is so much wrong logically with that statement, I find it surprisingly difficult to determine where to begin.

We have already discussed that information affects reality in our experiments and consciousness doesn't. I don't know what your definition of 'real' is, but if you mean that it exists in the same ontological category as matter, then your conclusion is the opposite of what makes sense. Information must be made from the same stuff as matter and energy, how else can it affect them in such a direct and rigorous way?

'Consciousness' is obviously the construct here. It is just a complex version of instinct. It develops in all intelligent animals, we just happen to be the most complex ones on earth as far as we know. Consciousness is not an 'on/off switch'. You can be a bit more or a bit less conscious. There seem to be even quite large individual differences on that front within our own species, let alone between species. Where we have drawn the line between what we call a conscious being or not, on a cosmic scale is completely arbitrary. It is based on the current state of consciousness of the human species. Perhaps there are beings out there so far more intelligent than we are, that to them we aren't conscious at all.

Consciousness is a complexity-based gradient. Not a binary system. What we call consciousness is completely subjective. So there can be no fundamental link between consciousness and physical reality. In any case, the double slit experiment shows no such link, as it does for information.

I recommend '31 flavors of ontology' by Ron Garrett. A 5-10 minute read, it is very insightful and puts a lot of nuance into the term 'real'.

[Bill S]

Fascinating thread. Lots to think about. No time to chip in at present, but hope to return. 

This has to be among the better conducted discussions, Right or wrong; ideas are well presented, and thread drift kept to a minimum. 

[demalk (OP)]

Fascinating thread. Lots to think about. No time to chip in at present, but hope to return. 

This has to be among the better conducted discussions, Right or wrong; ideas are well presented, and thread drift kept to a minimum.

Much appreciated! Hope to read your 2 cents sometime soon