The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know

[interlagos]

So you in fact are shifting between parallel realities with your intent although the immediate effect isn't as big as you might expect. That comes with training.

How do you know? Maybe this is an alternate reality in which parallel realities don't exist?

That sounds like a paradox.
I don't see how one parallel reality can affect the existence of other parallel realities (or somehow make them non-existent).
What I can imagine is that such a reality would restrict you from shifting to other parallel realities for some time and create an illusion for you that they don't exist. But if there is a way in, then there always is a way out (even if through the same gateway).

How do I know?
Well there aren't many options here. The experimental evidence suggests that either we can affect the laws of physics with our intent in the same one reality, or we don't actually affect anything with our intent but instead are shifting ourselves to a slightly different parallel reality where the outcome of the experiment is slightly more inline with our intent. But from our perspective there seems to be only one line of continuity of those shifts that we perceive as our past. I prefer to think of it as we are shifting billions times per second from static frame of one parallel reality to a static frame of another parallel reality and the compass indicating where we shift to is in fact our intent.

Also I don't like the idea (as some physicists suggest) that the Universe is forking into parallel realities. It seems more likely that all those parallel realities are already there and have always been there, what really forks (or shifts) is our attention, our point of view or awareness.

Or does it just work that only the truth statements you agree with are objectively true?

Any objectivity exists there only by agreement.
If we both look at the sky on a sunny day and agree that the color of the sky is "blue", then what we have created is a shared token of our experience of that color, however the actual representation of how we see it in our mind's eye might be very different from one another. I will never be able to explain to you how I actually see it. Never.

And as crazy as it might sound, as we are looking at the sky (and therefore measuring it in QM terms), the sky is looking at us (that's what symmetry in QM math suggests) and therefore it might as well be very well conscious, though it wouldn't always give us a hint about it.

That's what the presenter in the OP video meant when he said: "we're correlations without correlata". What we perceive is the difference in vibrations between each other, but not the vibrations themselves, if that makes more sense.

Credit of the two options goes to Hugh Everett III and JS Bell.But their astounding discoveries are ignored by the mainstream popular science.

Everett's interpretation is actually quite popular amongst physicists IIRC.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

See question 12.

Copenhagen 42%
Information   24%
Everett         18%

Yes, and mathematically it is way more elegant and consistent.

[1713897107]

1713897107

[1713897107]

1713897107

[grondilu]

Everett's interpretation is actually quite popular amongst physicists IIRC.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

See question 12.

Copenhagen 42%
Information   24%
Everett         18%

Yes, and mathematically it is way more elegant and consistent.

Sure, but unfortunately it's not mathematically fully convincing according to Brian Greene for instance.  Otherwise all physicists would be Everettian.

[Richy_T]

One word: Simulation argument.

One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.

---Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University

Most people are not British. Therefore, I should assume that I am likely not British?

His final statement also ignores the part where he "Suppose that these simulated people are conscious".

Let's not forget Occam's razor either.

And as to being suppressed, multi-worlds was put forth as a possible alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation when I was at University. Many physicists are not really happy with Copenhagen in any case since it leaves too much unanswered. So does multi-worlds though. My own interpretation is that they are likely direct equivalents with no real differences though if there really is mathematical proof against one or the other, that would be interesting.

Zero worlds is just solipsism which is fun to play with mentally but ultimately leads nowhere useful.

[bbit]

whatever gets the job done! 

[Snowfire]

"Zero worlds" is just another name for solipsism, which philosophers have debated for centuries. Most have concluded it is not a particularly useful model for describing (or predicting) reality; it has all kinds of Ockham's Razor problems.

[interlagos]

"Zero worlds" is just another name for solipsism, which philosophers have debated for centuries. Most have concluded it is not a particularly useful model for describing (or predicting) reality; it has all kinds of Ockham's Razor problems.

Thanks for reviving the interest to this weeks old thread.
I agree that all these interpretations are just different ways to look at the same one thing.

Here is a fragment of the video that makes an explanation of the "quantum eraser" experiment mentioned in the OP video a little bit easier to conceive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6yCD_sEvU#t=67m15s

In short its says that if we perform the measurement for the double slit experiment and record both:
1) which slit an electron went through and put the result in one envelope (but never look at it)
2) the resulting pattern on the screen (either two bands or an interference pattern) and put it in another envelope (but never look at it)
then one might think that the picture of the resulting pattern is already determined at this point (wave-function collapsed), but it turns out that if instead of opening up the first envelope and seeing which way an electron went through we erase it (vaporize it into dust) then when we open the second envelope for the first time we will see an interference pattern instead of expected two bands. So the result in the second envelope which has already been recorded (and is in your hands) would actually depend on whether you open up the first envelope and see which way an electron went through or destroy it and never look at the data.

In general the video I just linked attempts to bind together various points of view and experimental data from both the mainstream research in neuroscience (BBC documentary) and the alternative research into presentiment (by Dean Radin) into an idea that the reality is first projected out by the brain and only then perceived back by it (which is also somewhat consistent with Rupert Sheldrake research I linked earlier in this thread, when he talks about experience of being watched). I haven't watched the whole series yet (have only gotten to the part 2) so I don't know if the conversation goes beyond talking just about the brain which it should if it purports to be a complete model (we are definitely more than our brains and even our language suggests so), but it already seems interesting. I will post my opinion here once I finish watching all the rest of it.

The other thing I'm yet to wrap my mind around is how one consciousness can split into many and experience itself as multitude of facets of creation (as seemingly separate autonomous beings) and where I (or you) come into this picture. Am I the part of the whole (then who decided which part I should be) or am I already the whole but simply pretending to be a part of it creating an illusion of forgetfulness about the other parts and trying to find my way back to full remembrance? Which way do you think it is and what is mechanizm of the split?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYZlCzdIMU#t=2m06s

[cbeast]

The other thing I'm yet to wrap my mind around is how one consciousness can split into many and experience itself as multitude of facets of creation (as seemingly separate autonomous beings) and where I (or you) come into this picture. Am I the part of the whole (then who decided which part I should be) or am I already the whole but simply pretending to be a part of it creating an illusion of forgetfulness about the other parts and trying to find my way back to full remembrance? Which way do you think it is and what is mechanizm of the split?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYZlCzdIMU#t=2m06s

That is a good question to ask someone with (for lack of a better term) multiple personality disorder. There really is no I. There is only the stimuli of brain cells and centers that evolve adaptation behaviors for the organism. If you have a hemispherectomy, you will still be you to you, but not the same you to us. As individuals, perceptions are what drive the organism through the optics of learning behaviors. As a socially communicating species, we develop those optics through the adaptive behavior of others. If you want to experience this for yourself, go back and read things you have written years ago. You may find the thoughts you expressed quite estranged.

[qbits]

We know that the most efficient possible computer could not count to 2^256 even if it could use 100% of the sun's output with perfect efficiency.

Has anyone ever calculated how much energy would be needed to simulate a universe to see if it's even remotely credible?

you are wrong. there is no minimum amount of energy needed to perform a calculation.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422511/the-fantastical-promise-of-reversible-computing/

[justusranvier]

you are wrong. there is no minimum amount of energy needed to perform a calculation.

You might want to consider refraining from throwing around words that you don't understand.

What you've done there is called "confirmation bias". You decided something is true, so then you searched the Internet looking for something that supported your preconceived notions. That's not a valid approach to epistemology.

In any case, what did you find?

So their idea is to perform the inverse computation on the output states and if this reproduces the original states, then the computation is error free. And because this relies on reversible logic steps, it naturally minimizes the amount of garbage states that are produced in between.

There are one or two caveats, of course. The first is that nobody has succeeded in building a properly reversible logic gate so this work is entirely theoretical.

Their findings can be summarized as follows: "If some process which is impossible exists, then other processes which are also impossible could be performed."

That's not exactly revolutionary. I can write a paper proving that if we discover magic, then I would the most powerful wizard in the universe. Unless somebody proves the existence of magic though it would just be a wish fulfillment fantasy.

[qbits]

You might want to consider refraining from throwing around words that you don't understand.

What you've done there is called "confirmation bias". You decided something is true, so then you searched the Internet looking for something that supported your preconceived notions. That's not a valid approach to epistemology.

In any case, what did you find?

So their idea is to perform the inverse computation on the output states and if this reproduces the original states, then the computation is error free. And because this relies on reversible logic steps, it naturally minimizes the amount of garbage states that are produced in between.

There are one or two caveats, of course. The first is that nobody has succeeded in building a properly reversible logic gate so this work is entirely theoretical.

Their findings can be summarized as follows: "If some process which is impossible exists, then other processes which are also impossible could be performed."

That's not exactly revolutionary. I can write a paper proving that if we discover magic, then I would the most powerful wizard in the universe. Unless somebody proves the existence of magic though it would just be a wish fulfillment fantasy.

ah, then you might want to explain which word is it that I do not understand?

the link I submitted is indeed the one I could find quickly, however I did read on the subject a few years (decade?) ago in a book by late Mr. Feynman, who I'm sure did understand a lot of words.

bottom line is: way we do computation, on a computer you bought in a shop today, is such that we need to spend energy and increase entropy to do it. Much in the same way we need to spend energy to push energy down a wire due to electrical resistance of the same. Both of these are not "optimal" ways of doing things. We can have supercouducting wires and reversible machines. Both of these are not impossible by contradicting any known physical laws. If so please state which one.

BR

[interlagos]

The other thing I'm yet to wrap my mind around is how one consciousness can split into many and experience itself as multitude of facets of creation (as seemingly separate autonomous beings) and where I (or you) come into this picture. Am I the part of the whole (then who decided which part I should be) or am I already the whole but simply pretending to be a part of it creating an illusion of forgetfulness about the other parts and trying to find my way back to full remembrance? Which way do you think it is and what is mechanizm of the split?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMYZlCzdIMU#t=2m06s

That is a good question to ask someone with (for lack of a better term) multiple personality disorder.

This is interesting indeed, we would have to ask each personality independently though and might get a different answer from each
There are documented cases where different personalities (sharing the same body), might have different eye color or even have cancerous tumour show up and disappear as soon as they shift between each other.

From the model where consciousness exists outside of the physical realm, it can be explained that multiple consciousnesses have access (private key collision?) to the same receiver (human brain) and adjust the body to their way of expressing themselves.

There really is no I. There is only the stimuli of brain cells and centers that evolve adaptation behaviors for the organism. If you have a hemispherectomy, you will still be you to you, but not the same you to us. As individuals, perceptions are what drive the organism through the optics of learning behaviors. As a socially communicating species, we develop those optics through the adaptive behavior of others. If you want to experience this for yourself, go back and read things you have written years ago. You may find the thoughts you expressed quite estranged.

I believe consciousness (as a sense of awareness) goes far beyond social behaviour or reacting to stimuli.

If you sit quietly not moving a muscle, not reacting to any noise around, you might look like a piece of rock to the "outside world", but you would still be conscious about yourself. It seems that you are not the one who thinks the thoughts, but the "inner being" inside who listens to them, who observes everything that's going on, and even if your reactions, your behaviours, your thought patterns change overtime, the "inner you" itself never does or it wouldn't be able to tell the difference. When you say I'm a different person now than I was 10 years ago, then who is making the comparison? If you subtract from yourself the personality you were 10 years ago and the one you are now and any in between and before that, you will be left with a "pure you", who was just observing all of the experiences you've had to this point. This "pure you" doesn't have any flavour or personality traits attached to it, it's just a singular observer whose only job is to be present. So the consciousness has more to do with being rather than doing. We are "human beings" after all not "human doings"

Another challenge that comes from trying to explain consciousness (as a sense of awareness) from materialistic point of view is two fold. Firstly, it seems that matter itself (including the cells constituting your brain) does not exist independently of an observer and QM is very clear about that (no matter the interpretation). Secondly, if this "pure you" consciousness (the one "inside" that witnesses you reading this post right now) comes from complexity of material manifestation, then there must be a map in the Universe that says: if atoms and molecules of certain type coalesce in a certain specifically predefined pattern under the right temperature and other physical conditions, then the resulting consciousness will be "you", otherwise it will be some other consciousness. That sounds strange, isn't it? Who would give the Universe this kind of map, and why "you" and "I" (as a sense of awareness that we are) would need to be there at all?

Anyway, I just watched the third part of the Holographic Universe series (I linked the second part in my previous post) and it seems that conversation turns in the right direction (though making a few surprising twists along the way). They attempt to discern various interpretation of the word consciousness and call semantically different things with different words. They also recommend to watch a movie in the end of every part (which I enjoyed watching so far) as a good background for the conversation at hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3EnFYnX6Wo

[Mageant]

"Zero worlds" is just another name for solipsism, which philosophers have debated for centuries. Most have concluded it is not a particularly useful model for describing (or predicting) reality; it has all kinds of Ockham's Razor problems.

Can you give some examples of the Occam's Razor type problems this gives?

[MonadTran]

It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable.

So? Quantum Mechanics is supposed to be a method for finding approximate solutions to Quantum Field Theory equations. Quantum Field Theory is based on unsound mathematics. One attempt to resolve some (not all) of the inconsistencies is String Theory. String Theory is not developed well enough to take it into account. The entire thing is pretty much work in progress. You can accept it, you can reject it, or you can try to improve it. If you accept it, you are insane. If you reject it completely, you cannot reap the benefits of the existing, even though inconsistent, theory. The only reasonable approach is to accept it partially, with all its limitations and inconsistencies, and try to improve on it.

which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts.

Almost correct, and mostly obvious. The objective reality may or may not exist, we cannot even know that. Our minds are receiving some inputs, we construct theories based on those inputs, we modify or reject these theories if necessary. Partial and inconsistent theories are fine, if you don't have a better alternative. I don't see how one can make a statement that a theory corresponds to "objective reality" in any way. Objective reality, if it exists, cannot be perceived directly. Theories, and inputs of unknown nature, is all we have. Copenhagen interpretation is one of the theories. Doesn't matter if it is consistent or not. What matters is if it is useful to me, in a particular situation.

[interlagos]

Let me add a few more challenges to those wandering around this topic.

First, now that I mentioned it in my previous post, I got curious about it myself, so here it goes:
 - Are we thinking our thoughts ourselves (active perspective) or
 - Are we just observing the thoughts popping up in our heads seemingly out of nowhere (passive perspective)?
 - Something in between, some thoughts are ours and other are coming from elsewhere and we have to deal with them
It seems like that silhouette picture of a woman that you can look at both ways - facing front or facing back and there is no right way of looking at it.

Second, what happens when we go to sleep and wake up?
 - Is it the same sense of awareness that wakes up each morning? Then why the same sense of awareness wakes up in a slightly different body? (atoms and molecules rearrange themselves during the night a bit, so technically the body is different) or
 - Is it new sense of awareness that wakes up each morning and the perceived continuity is just an illusion (created in memory)? Then can going to sleep and waking up be compared to reincarnation? What if some day you wake up in a completely different body which is very young and cries all day long pissing their pants and you have no idea how you got there?

Anyway, I've just finished watching the rest of the workshop series about The Holographic Universe (part 4 and 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshVgi-KTwI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrPZhbnpmU
They don't insist that this is how it is, but they came up with a model that seems to match the most recent scientific research and might be workable for some. It seems interesting but I'm sure there are still plenty of white spots in that model to colour. You can find the first three videos in the same channel if you want to watch from the beginning.

"Zero worlds" is just another name for solipsism, which philosophers have debated for centuries. Most have concluded it is not a particularly useful model for describing (or predicting) reality; it has all kinds of Ockham's Razor problems.

Can you give some examples of the Occam's Razor type problems this gives?

This is a good point!
I would pick a model with just one singularity (Consciousness) over any model with two singularities (physical Universe out of Big Bang and then Consciousness in a physical Universe). At least that's what Occam's Razor suggests, and remember that consciousness is an observable fact, compared to the physical Universe that might be just a dream.

I've posted this before, but it seems to fit the conversation once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

Now if consciousness is primary, how does it split to create an illusion of physical reality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4DkBWC4Bp4

It turns out that the most popular and widely taught interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, so called Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the waves of probabilities somehow collapse as a result of measurement is mathematically untenable.

So? Quantum Mechanics is supposed to be a method for finding approximate solutions to Quantum Field Theory equations. Quantum Field Theory is based on unsound mathematics. One attempt to resolve some (not all) of the inconsistencies is String Theory. String Theory is not developed well enough to take it into account. The entire thing is pretty much work in progress. You can accept it, you can reject it, or you can try to improve it. If you accept it, you are insane. If you reject it completely, you cannot reap the benefits of the existing, even though inconsistent, theory. The only reasonable approach is to accept it partially, with all its limitations and inconsistencies, and try to improve on it.

which states that there is no underlying objective reality at all and we are all creations of our thoughts.

Almost correct, and mostly obvious. The objective reality may or may not exist, we cannot even know that. Our minds are receiving some inputs, we construct theories based on those inputs, we modify or reject these theories if necessary. Partial and inconsistent theories are fine, if you don't have a better alternative. I don't see how one can make a statement that a theory corresponds to "objective reality" in any way. Objective reality, if it exists, cannot be perceived directly. Theories, and inputs of unknown nature, is all we have. Copenhagen interpretation is one of the theories. Doesn't matter if it is consistent or not. What matters is if it is useful to me, in a particular situation.

Yes, it's ok to play with different models and see which one works for you, many people don't even bother doing that and that's ok too!

The real question is how far are you willing to go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiIEyxZFtxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaBPBzlX2Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5KO-uQack

Are you willing to face the ultimate question?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyf38s4pjD0

PS: I will be away from the Internets for the next few weeks, so I won't be posting too often during that period.

[dank]

Thoughts are alternate realties we observe and connect to.

[foggyb]

Thoughts are alternate realties we observe and connect to.

What a thought! You should post that sometime in a thread called Quantum Conspiracy!

[Jobe7]

As poster above said, it IS actively suppressed, or stolen and hidden, or the scientists threatened, beaten, or killed.

I'll say no more on that, as I'm ready to take a bullet to help destroy the fiat system, science will have to be done by another person