[alancalverd]

It's really quite an important assumption in physics. If stuff didn't exist in our absence, we'd have a hard time explaining why it exists in our presence, why bits of it don't disappear when someone dies, and why more stuff doesn't magically appear when the human population increases.

Experimental evidence:  The tide is predominantly controlled by the moon. Most people shut their eyes at night, but the tide cycle is 25 hours, not 24.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Yes. But I'm not saying that matter doesn't exist when you don't look at it. But rather that its shape is different when you don't look at it. Eg. the matter is wave until the observation where it becomes particle.

[alancalverd]

How does it know whether and when you are looking at it? And why would it care enough about you to change its nature?

We can now see the light emitted by a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away. Did the galaxy change from wave to particle 13.5by ago in the certain knowledge that homo sapiens might evolve and look at it, did it change yesterday, or will it change in another 13.5by when it learns that we have seen it? 

Remember what I said some way back: "wave function collapse" is not reality but a mathematical model of reality.

[Kartazion (OP)]

How does it know whether and when you are looking at it? And why would it care enough about you to change its nature?

I have the same question with this experience. Observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Relational_interpretation

The measurement is however made with a simple video camera.

We can now see the light emitted by a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away. Did the galaxy change from wave to particle 13.5by ago in the certain knowledge that homo sapiens might evolve and look at it, did it change yesterday, or will it change in another 13.5by when it learns that we have seen it?

I guess as soon as you don't look at all it goes back to its original state. But how during the slit experiment does the electron know that it is being observed?

Remember what I said some way back: "wave function collapse" is not reality but a mathematical model of reality.

The mathematical model represents reality well.

[Colin2B]

But can you please answer me this question : If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?

So it would seem.

I have the same question with this experience. Observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object.

The measurement is however made with a simple video camera.

Why do you say ‘however’? The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.
I will add an ‘however’ of my own here. The photon possesses a property (you can debate whether it is absolute) of a varying electric field which interacts with the electrons in the sensor creating a photo electric effect which is what we actually measure.

But how during the slit experiment does the electron know that it is being observed?

It doesn’t. Don’t make the mistake of anthropomorphising inanimate objects.

The mathematical model represents reality well.

It does, but it is the interpretation of those models into an assumed reality that causes the problems.
Take an electron. We only ever measure it to have one of 2 spin states. When it is ejected from an atom we don’t know which state it will be until we measure it. We can, however, describe it mathematically as a superposition of those 2 states, which is very useful. The problem comes when people interpret that superposition (an indeterminate state) as ‘the electron has not yet decided which state it is in’, which is nonsensical, even when applied to a cat which is capable of making decisions.

[alancalverd]

Relational_interpretation

is obviously wrong.

I guess as soon as you don't look at all it goes back to its original state

My question was what do you mean by "as soon as". And how does it remember what its original state was 13.5 or 27 billion years ago? If the light came from an explosion, are you suggesting that the bits recombine when I stop looking? Or when you stop looking? How does the object choose its observer?

The mathematical model does indeed predict some aspects of reality, but it's always worth remembering  that "a dead mouse is a perfect representation of a live mouse, but only for a very short time" (Stafford Beer). A model is not reality, and mapping loses dimensionality. The collapsing wave function gives you a nice interference pattern, but doesn't explain or predict the fact that you can't detect partial electrons downstream of the slit.

[Kartazion (OP)]

The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.

Matter is in a quantum superposition before observation.

1 - The observation by the camera causes the quantum superposition to collapse and generate a single quantum state of matter.
2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.

Correct?

is obviously wrong.

Wikipedia.

My question was what do you mean by "as soon as". And how does it remember what its original state was 13.5 or 27 billion years ago? If the light came from an explosion, are you suggesting that the bits recombine when I stop looking? Or when you stop looking? How does the object choose its observer?

Yes. Because Einstein said that "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." — Albert Einstein

[Kartazion (OP)]

The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.

It must be understood that the sensor is on the side and in no way interferes with the photon beam. In other words, the sensor does not receive the light directly on it. How then do you explain the fact that the sensor informs the wave of its presence? Otherwise ironically where would be the difficulty of this experiment if only in its interpretation of the measurement of the observation!?

2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.

Necessarily the case of figure n°2 is false and the mathematical model of the wave function collapse also applies to the human eye in the same way as the video camera (case of figure n°1), namely the correlated matter in a unique determined quantum state.

[Kartazion (OP)]

@alancalverd @Colin2B what does this 4min video say?

 Thanks.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?

I don't dispute that it's possible, but I do dispute that it is probable.

Can you argue your position?

Lack of evidence for us being in a simulation, I'd say.

@Kryptid are you now convinced and after having understood through the Double-slit experiment that the observation is only a simulation of wave which transits in particle when it is observed?

______________
Conclusion:

Finally we deduce that our nature is formed of waves and is captured by the eye to determine the "desired / unexpected" result in the form of a particle. The Double-slit experiment is an undeniable argument for the interpretation of a simulation. I remind you that the probability that our world is simulated have a fifty-fifty chance. Eg. arXiv paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12254

[Halc]

1 - The observation by the camera causes the quantum superposition to collapse and generate a single quantum state of matter.

In almost all interpretations that posit wave function collapse, the wavefunction of the measured thing (electron/photon/whatever) collapses upon interaction with its target, which is unlikely to be the camera. The camera plays no significant role here.

2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.

The eyes have no effect here. They're just more superfluous cameras. I couldn't really parse your statement here.

One does not see a superposition state. One sees the effects of interference between multiple states in superposition, but superposition of a given set of states is gone at that point, and the eyes play no role in that collapse.

How does it know whether and when you are looking at it? And why would it care enough about you to change its nature?

I have the same question with this experience. Observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Relational_interpretation

That quote is specific only to a single quantum interpretation, and is not something that quantum theory itself would suggest.
A counterfactual interpretation would say that the choice now of how to observe a particular phenomenon will cause a change in the indefinite past as to how it is to behave. This has been show to cause changes billions of years in the past.
I prefer to stick with local interpretations that don't allow such reverse causality.

Relational_interpretation

is obviously wrong.

Your argument from incredulity is noted, but it hardly constitutes evidence against the interpretation.

is obviously wrong.

Wikipedia.

Admittedly, wiki probably wouldn't list an interpretation that has been falsified, so this retort is not empty. But the interpretation's presence in a wiki article is no evidence that it is the correct interpretation, or that any quote specific to the interpretation (like the one you quoted above) is some kind of accepted scientific fact.

Because Einstein said that "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." — Albert Einstein

That wasn't a statement from any scientific paper, but rather a quip about his personal preferences. I can think of no valid interpretation of QM that suggests that the moon would not be there even if nobody was looking at it.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 14:53:22

is obviously wrong.

Wikipedia.

Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism, Does that make the Nazi philosophy right?

[alancalverd]

Yes.

is not an answer to  the questions I posed. If you aren't prepared to discuss scientific matters in a scientific manner, or even acknowledge simple logic, I won't waste any more time with you.

[Colin2B]

Matter is in a quantum superposition before observation.

we can describe our knowledge of the state of a particle by a superposition of 2 or more other states. That does not mean that it actually exists in that superposition, and there are examples where particles are in a known state before measurement.

1 - The observation by the camera causes the quantum superposition to collapse and generate a single quantum state of matter.
2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.

Correct?

I don’t follow your arguments.
If the camera is being used as the sensor - as is the case in many single photon experiments - then it detects the photon hitting the sensor hence releasing electrons. This is the photoelectric effect.
If the eye were to be used as the sensor - extremely unusual to do this - then it is a chemical reaction.
In neither case is there any reason to talk about superposition.

The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.

It must be understood that the sensor is on the side and in no way interferes with the photon beam. In other words, the sensor does not receive the light directly on it.

This conflicts with your statement above “The observation by the camera ...”
If it doesn’t receive the photons I really don’t know why you even bother to mention it.

How then do you explain the fact that the sensor informs the wave of its presence? Otherwise ironically where would be the difficulty of this experiment if only in its interpretation of the measurement of the observation!?

You’ve just said the sensor is not receiving any photons, so it can’t inform anyone or anything.

are you now convinced and after having understood through the Double-slit experiment that the observation is only a simulation of wave which transits in particle when it is observed?

No, you have provided no evidence of that.

Finally we deduce that our nature is formed of waves and is captured by the eye to determine the "desired / unexpected" result in the form of a particle. The Double-slit experiment is an undeniable argument for the interpretation of a simulation. I remind you that the probability that our world is simulated have a fifty-fifty chance. Eg. arXiv paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12254

Again, you have provided no such evidence.
You are assuming that the creation of such complex simulations is possible. The paper you quote states that the probability is less than 50% and only approaches that figure if a large number of simulations exist - approaching infinity - which does not seem feasible. The paper has drawn little interest other than as a mathematical exercise.

It is possible that you are completely misunderstanding the double slit experiment, as is the case with most popsci articles. This is particularly true of the delayed choice experiments. I have no more time to waste of this thread, but suggest you read and watch:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser.html

[Kryptid]

@Kryptid are you now convinced and after having understood through the Double-slit experiment that the observation is only a simulation of wave which transits in particle when it is observed?

Nope.

The Double-slit experiment is an undeniable argument for the interpretation of a simulation.

Non-sequitur.

I remind you that the probability that our world is simulated have a fifty-fifty chance.

As Colin2B already pointed out, that paper says that the chance is less than 50%.

[Bored chemist]

In what way is
"Was the universe created by an intelligent entity rather than chance evolution?" different from
"Is there a God?
(at least in the sense of a "God the creator")

As far as I can tell, it's just a relabelling of an old question.
And centuries of argument have never shown any convincing argument for a God, nor have they shown anything that can't be  explained without one.

So I really don't see much point to this thread.

[Kartazion (OP)]

As Colin2B already pointed out, that paper says that the chance is less than 50%.

Pipo...

It's because you haven't read the article. Look, if you understand*:

3. DISCUSSION

In this work, we have divided the three propositions of Bostrom (2003) into two hypotheses: one where simulated realities are produced (HS), and one where they are not (HP ). Comparing the models with Bayesian statistical methods, it is found that that the Bayes factor is approximately unity, with a slight preference towards HP. Whilst the Bayes factor can be objectively stated without the need to assign any priors, the odds ratio between the two models depends on the prior model probabilities, Pr(HS)/Pr(HP ). A standard choice is to assume all models are a-priori as likely as each other, but this could be challenged as being too generous to model HS, on the basis that it is an intrinsically far more complex model. If one goes further and assigns a value to the ratio of the prior model probabilities, then one can use Bayesian model averaging to marginalize over the models, weighted by their posterior probabilities. If one does not penalize the model HS for its complexity and simply assigns even a-priori odds, then it is still found that the probability we live in base reality - after marginalizing over the model uncertainties - is still not the favored outcome, with a probability less than 50%. As the number of simulations grows very large, this probability tends towards 50%, and thus it is argued here that the most generous probability that can be assigned to the idea that we live inside a simulation is one half.

THE BAYESIAN SIMULATION ARGUMENT 15

It is argued that the results presented are robust against the choice of self sampling.
For example, if one replaced the conditionals used here, which describe the reality in
which one finds oneself, with the number of sims in each state/reality, this would not
noticeably affect the results under the assumption that the number of sims per reality
is evenly distributed. This is because our results asymptotically tend towards 50% in
the case of a large number of realities, but that would be equally so if one replaced
realities with sims instead, which would display the same asymptotic behaviour. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.12254.pdf


*If you don't want to read all these details you can simply Google it, you'll see, it's fifty/fifty.

Google "Live in a Simulation 50 50 chance"

______________

One by one I'm proving you all wrong.

[Kartazion (OP)]

As far as I can tell, it's just a relabelling of an old question.
And centuries of argument have never shown any convincing argument for a God, nor have they shown anything that can't be  explained without one.

Yes nothing in particular. Just the usual prophetic messages to kings, like this:

Jeremiah 4:7
English Standard Version
A lion has gone up from his thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out; he has gone out from his place to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant.



Jeremiah 5:12-31

Spoiler: show

12 They have spoken falsely of the LORD and have said, ‘He will do nothing; no disaster will come upon us, nor shall we see sword or famine.

13 The prophets will become wind; the word is not in them. Thus shall it be done to them!’” The LORD Proclaims Judgment

14 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of hosts: “Because you have spoken this word, behold, I am making my words in your mouth a fire, and this people wood, and the fire shall consume them.

15 Behold, I am bringing against you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, declares the LORD. It is an enduring nation; it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

16 Their quiver is like an open tomb; they are all mighty warriors.

17 They shall eat up your harvest and your food; they shall eat up your sons and your daughters; they shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; your fortified cities in which you trust
they shall beat down with the sword.”

18 “But even in those days, declares the LORD, I will not make a full end of you. 19And when your people say, ‘Why has the LORD our God done all these things to us?’ you shall say to them, ‘As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a land that is not yours.’”

20 Declare this in the house of Jacob; proclaim it in Judah:

21 “Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not.

22 Do you not fear me? declares the LORD. Do you not tremble before me? I placed the sand as the boundary for the  sea, a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail; though they roar, they cannot pass over it.

23 But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and gone away.

24 They do not say in their hearts, ‘Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives the rain in its season, the autumn rain and the spring rain, and keeps for us the weeks appointed for the harvest.’

25 Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you.

26 For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait.a They set a trap; they catch men.

27 Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich;

28 they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.

29 Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as his?”

30 An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land:

31 the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism, Does that make the Nazi philosophy right?

In any case what I know is that when I see @alancalverd, then I know that his speech is not right.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Abstract. If you're reading this thread, you're asking yourself this question. Namely is there a God? The answer is that there is a definite chance. Some scientists consider the chance of living in a matrix to be 50%.

Conclusion, no one here and now can contradict these facts.

Choose your side.

References:
1 - Paul Sutter (2022-01-21). "Do we live in a simulation? The problem with this mind-bending hypothesis". Space.com. Retrieved 2022-02-10.   
2 - Manjoo, Farhad (2022-01-26). "Opinion | We Might Be in a Simulation. How Much Should That Worry Us?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-02-10.   
3 - "The Matrix: Are we living in a simulation?". BBC Science Focus Magazine. Retrieved 2022-02-10.   
4 - Brantley, Ben (January 16, 2012). "'World of Wires' at the Kitchen — Review". The New York Times.
5 - Bostrom, Nick (2003). "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?". Philosophical Quarterly. 53 (211): 243–255. doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00309.   
6 - Grabianowski, Ed (7 May 2011). "You're living in a computer simulation, and math proves it". Gizmodo. Retrieved 29 October 2016.   
7 - Bostrom, Nick (2003). "The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High"   
8 - Chalmers, Davis J. "The Matrix as Metaphysics".
9 - Weatherson, Brian (2003). "Are You a Sim?". The Philosophical Quarterly. 53 (212): 425–431. doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00323. JSTOR 3543127.
10 - Dainton, Barry (2012). "On singularities and simulations". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 19 (1): 42. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.374.7434.
11 - Carroll, Sean (22 August 2016). "Maybe We Do Not Live in a Simulation: The Resolution Conundrum". PreposterousUniverse.com.
12 - Sean Carroll (January 18, 2021). "SEAN CARROLL'S MINDSCAPE". Preposterousuniverse.com (Podcast). Sean Carroll. Event occurs at 0:53.37.
13 - Eggleston, Brian. "Bostrom Review". stanford.edu. Retrieved April 18, 2021.
14 - "Simulation Hypothesis: its appearance and meaning -- Simulation Hypothesis Definition and Articles". The Global Architect Institute. Retrieved 2022-02-10.
15 - Davies, P. C. W. (2004). "Multiverse Cosmological Models". Modern Physics Letters A. 19 (10): 727–743. arXiv:astro-ph/0403047. Bibcode:2004MPLA...19..727D. doi:10.1142/S021773230401357X.
16 - Jaeger, Gregg (2018). "Clockwork Rebooted: Is the Universe a Computer?". Quantum Foundations, Probability and Information. STEAM-H: Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, Mathematics & Health: 71–91. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74971-6_8. ISBN 978-3-319-74970-9.
17 - Gleiser, Marcelo (March 9, 2017). "Why Reality Is Not A Video Game — And Why It Matters". NPR. Retrieved January 18, 2021.
18 - Wheeler, J.A. (1990) Information, Physics, Quantum. In: Zurek, W.H., Ed., Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Addison-Wesley, Boston, 354-368.
19 - Lloyd, Seth (2011-10-24). "The Universe as Quantum Computer". In Zenil, Hector (ed.). A Computable Universe. World Scientific. pp. 567–581. arXiv:1312.4455. doi:10.1142/9789814374309_0029. ISBN 978-981-4374-29-3. Retrieved 2021-04-13.
20 - Campbell, T., Owhadi, H., Sauvageau, J. and Watkinson, D. (2017) On Testing the Simulation Theory.
21 - Bacon, Dave (December 2010). "Ubiquity symposium 'What is computation?': Computation and Fundamental Physics". Ubiquity. 2010 (December): 1895419.1920826. doi:10.1145/1895419.1920826. ISSN 1530-2180. S2CID 14337268.
22 - "Elon Musk Says There's a 'One in Billions' Chance Reality Is Not a Simulation - VICE". www.vice.com.
23 - "Joe Rogan & Elon Musk - Are We in a Simulated Reality?". Archived from the original on 2021-12-15 – via www.youtube.com.
24 - Powell, Corey S. "Elon Musk says we may live in a simulation. Here's how we might tell if he's right". www.nbcnews.com.
25 - "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-15.
26 - Hanson, Robin (2001). "How to live in a simulation" (PDF). Journal of Evolution and Technology. 7.
27 - Beane, Silas R.; Davoudi, Zohreh; J. Savage, Martin (2014). "Constraints on the universe as a numerical simulation". The European Physical Journal A. 50 (9): 148. arXiv:1210.1847. doi:10.1140/epja/i2014-14148-0. ISSN 1434-6001. S2CID 4236209.
28 - Moskowitz, Clara (7 April 2016). "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?". Scientific American.
29 - Campbell, Tom; Owhadi, Houman; Sauvageau, Joe; Watkinson, David (June 17, 2017). "On Testing the Simulation Theory". International Journal of Quantum Foundations. 3 (3): 78–99.
30 - Greene, Preston (10 August 2019). "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let's Not Find Out - Experimental findings will be either boring or extremely dangerous". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
31 - Chalmers, David (January 1990). "How Cartesian Dualism Might Have Been True".
32 - "Reality+ by David J Chalmers review – are we living in a simulation?". the Guardian. 2022-01-19. Retrieved 2022-02-10.
33 - Conitzer, Vincent (2019). "A Puzzle about Further Facts". Erkenntnis. 84 (3): 727–739. arXiv:1802.01161. doi:10.1007/s10670-018-9979-6. S2CID 36796226.
34 - "Skepticism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 6, 2021.
35 - Pieri, L. (2021). "The Simplicity Assumption and Some Implications of the Simulation Argument for our Civilization". OSF Preprints. doi:10.31219/osf.io/ca8se. S2CID 240660433. Retrieved June 6, 2021.