New interpretation of QM, with new two-phase cosmology, solves 15 foundational problems in one go.

[marcin]

Geoff, you removed IF and THEN from my sentence. You quoted only a part of it, like it was a statement and not the inference.

IF each and every particle collapses on one of the detectors on the slits even though you can't see it, because you closed your eyes, THEN it can't interfere with itself, so there is no interference pattern.

 

[marcin]

I can give the alternative version.

IF none of the particles collapses on one of the detectors on the slits BECAUSE you can't see it, because you closed your eyes, THEN it will interfere with itself and you'll see the interference pattern after you open your eyes.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Geoff, you removed IF and THEN from my sentence. You quoted only a part of it, like it was a statement and not the inference.

IF each and every particle collapses on one of the detectors on the slits even though you can't see it, because you closed your eyes, THEN it can't interfere with itself, so there is no interference pattern.

OK, this is a conditional statement, where the condition directly contradicts 2PC. So it logically equates to:

"IF 2PC is false, then 2PC is falsified."

You are very literally, directly and blatantly assuming your conclusion.

IF it is metaphysically impossible for particles to collapse on detectors, then this thought experiment is completely irrelevant. Which is exactly what I said at the beginning of this discussion.

Your thought experiment is of no consequence. There is literally no point in discussing it with respect to 2PC, because it has nothing to do with 2PC.

 

[marcin]

IF none of the particles collapses on one of the detectors on the slits BECAUSE you can't see it, because you closed your eyes, THEN it will interfere with itself and you'll see the interference pattern after you open your eyes.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I can give the alternative version.

IF none of the particles collapses on one of the detectors on the slits BECAUSE you can't see it, because you closed your eyes, THEN it will interfere with itself and you'll see the interference pattern after you open your eyes.

This version also involves a fundamental misunderstanding of 2PC. You are continually mixing up what happens at the detectors with what happens when consciousness gets involved.

In 2PC, NOTHING "happens" until consciousness is involved. Without consciousness there is no time, and no change, so no "happening". The entire unobserved physical world exists in a timeless, spaceless, purely informational manner. It's just an information structure, and there is no collapse until consciousness is involved.

Why can't you understand this?

 

[marcin]

Geoff, do you agree, that the consciousness gets involved AFTER you open your eyes?

 

[Geoff Dann]

Geoff, do you agree, that the consciousness gets involved AFTER you open your eyes?

That question still only makes sense if you have sneaked in the assumption I am trying to get you to stop sneaking in.
The question assumes that we have a consistent understanding of time -- of temporal relations. You cannot understand 2PC unless you are willing to radically reconsider the very meaning of time.

Your eyes are physical. Consciousness is involved in the decision to open your eyes, but even this works in a retrocausal manner. But opening your eyes will, in many cases, initiate wave function collapse in parts of the physical (phase 1) system. But there's no point in thinking about things in phase 1 (uncollapsed) reality happening before or after consciousness is involved. In phase 1 time is just a dimension within an informational structure. "Before and after" have no more meaning than that -- the whole thing comes into consciousness retrodictively: backwards in time.

Note that I do not accept "opening your eyes" as the trigger for collapse. What matters is the moment you become conscious of something (or somebody or something else does), not anything physical. It was the decision to open your eyes which triggered the collapse.

 

[marcin]

Note that I do not accept "opening your eyes" as the trigger for collapse. What matters is the moment you become conscious of something (or somebody or something else does), not anything physical.

Geoff, I was simplifying by equating the opening of your eyes with the conscious observation.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Geoff, I was simplifying by equating the opening of your eyes with the conscious observation.

OK, that's acceptable if clarified. However, we have some serious discussion ahead of us with respect to time.

 

[marcin]

No. We don't. Are you sure, that you'll see the interference pattern AFTER you open your eyes? Because I'm sure, I won't. That's my bet.

 

[Geoff Dann]

No. We don't

Then the discussion has reached an end point, because unless you are willing to reconsider the nature of time (which is deeply obscure in materialistic science) then you can't understand 2PC. You are simply refusing -- point blank -- to even consider what I am proposing.

. Are you sure, that you'll see the interference pattern AFTER you open your eyes? Because I'm sure, I won't. That's my bet.

And I have very explicitly

(1) Refused to make a bet.
(2) Stated that the outcome is irrelevant, and explained exactly why.

Any time you are ready to begin thinking seriously about the nature of time, and how it relates to this discussion, I'll be here.

 

[marcin]

The outcome says whether the particle's wave function collapses on one of the detectors on the slits because you were consciously observing it, or because it interacted with the detector despite your lack of knowledge about it.

 

[Geoff Dann]

The outcome says whether the particle's wave function collapses on one of the detectors on the slits because you were consciously observing it, or because it interacted with the detector despite your lack of knowledge about it.

You are attempting to continue the previous discussion, including all your assumptions about materialism and time, even though I have very clearly explained that there is nowhere for this discussion to go unless you are willing to seriously engage with 2PC's model of what time is. Without that, we aren't even discussing 2PC, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Whatever you think you are falsifying, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the position I am actually explaining and defending. It is just a strawman you have constructed based on a point-blank refusal to discuss the nature of time.

Which is a real shame, because I think you're capable of understanding 2PC to a very deep level if you were willing to try.

 

[marcin]

The outcome says whether the particle's wave function collapses on one of the detectors on the slits because you were consciously observing it, or because it interacted with the detector despite your lack of knowledge about it.

Where do you see my assumption in this sentence? I'm considering two options. 1. You're right. 2. I'm right.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Where do you see my assumption in this sentence? I'm considering two options. 1. You're right. 2. I'm right.

You have now descended into quite seriously bad faith communication.

I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, that your entire line of questioning is riddled with assumptions about time which are invalid from a 2PC perspective, and that if we actually want to discuss 2PC then we need to go back and clear up this confusion -- you need to understand and acknowledge what I am proposing time is and how it works.

I have repeatedly asked you do to this. You have point blank refused, and every time I try to bring the conversation back to the nature of time you ignore what I am saying and attempt to continue the debate without clearing up your confusion about what I am saying with respect to time and the nature of reality.

Why are you so reluctant discuss the nature of time, marcin? This is a cosmology forum. The nature of time could hardly be more relevant. And yet every time I ask you to talk about it, you attempt to change the subject.

Why bother with this strategy, given that I have now exposed the weak point in your argument? Every time this discussion comes up again, I will just go straight to the time question, and you will either obfuscate, change the subject or run away.

There is a reason you are doing this: you know, either consciously or subconsciously, that if you actually engage on the topic of time, your entire worldview will be directly threatened.

Do you care aboutTruth, Marcin?

Have you noticed that when I am actually wrong about something, and realise it, that I simply admit that I am wrong and move on to the next question?

Are you capable of doing that too, or are you like the majority of the population, who will just go on defending things that don't make any sense because they aren't willing or able to accept they may need to change something they believe?

 

[marcin]

That's just bla bla bla... Geoff. Plain and simple. I care about the truth very much and that's why I repeat, that the outcome of this experiment with your eyes closed and opened at the end tells you exactly which one of us is right.

 

[Geoff Dann]

That's just bla bla bla... Geoff. Plain and simple.

Oh dear. And you were doing so well up until now. You've now completely run out of arguments and your are reduced to the above -- attempting to dismiss entire posts as "bla bla bla" while making no attempt to engage with them.

You've lost the debate, Marcin. Your position has always depended on inserting materialistic assumptions into the model without acknowledging that you did so, and I've exposed this strategy by repeatedly asking you to discuss the nature of time (which is a major weak point in materialism, and directly relevant to the debate).

No, Marcin. That is not just "bla bla bla". That was your philosophical position melting away like chocolate on a sunny afternoon.

I care about the truth very much and that's why I repeat, that the outcome of this experiment with your eyes closed and opened at the end tells you exactly which one of us is right.

If you cared about the truth as much as I do then you'd be taking a very different approach to this discussion right now, and you would engage in a discussion about the nature of time. Why won't you do that? Is it because

(1) you think it isn't directly relevant to this discussion?
(2) you are worried that if you actually start discussing time, your position will be exposed as the fallacious nonsense it actually is?
(3) something else?

If I were you I would have welcomed the discussion about time, regardless of how uncomfortable that might make me feel, because I am much more interested in learning about what is wrong with my beliefs than I am in defending my existing belief system. I welcome being proved wrong. That is what led me to 2PC in the first place: fearlessly abandoning false beliefs when they were exposed to be false.

 

[marcin]

No, Marcin. That is not just "bla bla bla". That was your philosophical position melting away like chocolate on a sunny afternoon.

That was your brain melting away like chocolate on a sunny afternoon, and your math-phys position away with it.

If you cared about the truth as much as I do then you'd be taking a very different approach to this discussion right now, and you would engage in a discussion about the nature of time. Why won't you do that? Is it because

(1) you think it isn't directly relevant to this discussion?
(2) you are worried that if you actually start discussing time, your position will be exposed as the fallacious nonsense it actually is?
(3) something else?

Because you refuse to accept the basic logic of the experiment with eyes closed and opened at the end.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Any time you want to start discussing the nature of time, I'm game. There is no point in trying to discuss 2PC (which is what this thread is about) unless you are willing to acknowledge 2PC's hypothesis with respect to the nature of time. It's absolutely critical to the whole thing, because "time" means something radically different in phase 1 to what it does in phase 2. This defines 2PC.

Would it help to do it in another thread, involving other people?

 

[marcin]

Would it help to do it in another thread, involving other people?

Sure! Spam this forum and the whole internet as much as you can! Especially with the LLM's responses. Everyone will be delighted.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Sure! Spam this forum and the whole internet as much as you can! Especially with the LLM's responses. Everyone will be delighted.

So you don't think the nature of time -- what time has got to do with reality - has got anything to do with cosmology?

You think that a thread discussing the nature of time would be "spam"?

Or is it only spam when it is a specific hypothesis about time that you are (very obviously) deeply reluctant to engage with in good faith?

 

[marcin]

So you don't think the nature of time -- what time has got to do with reality - has got anything to do with cosmology?

You think that a thread discussing the nature of time would be "spam"?

No, but I refuse to discuss it as long as you refuse to accept the basic logic of the experiment with eyes closed and opened at the end.

 

[Geoff Dann]

No, but I refuse to discuss it as long as you refuse to accept the basic logic of the experiment with eyes closed and opened at the end.

Ah, so you refuse to discuss the nature of time unless I accept the basic logic of a thought experiment which I've already explicitly rejected on the grounds that it is based on unexamined assumptions about time. This discussion about time only began because I refused to engage with that thought experiment for that specific reason.

You refuse to discuss the nature of time unless I first accept your unexamined assumptions about the nature of time -- the very assumptions I am challenging.

Great!

You can do much better than this. I know you're not stupid, Marcin.

 

[marcin]

Ah, so you refuse to discuss the nature of time unless I accept the basic logic of a thought experiment which I've explicitly rejected on the grounds that it is based on unexamined assumptions about time.

You refuse to discuss the nature of time unless I accept your unexamined assumptions about the nature of time first.

Great!

What are the unexamined assumptions about time REGARDING this experiment?

 

[Geoff Dann]

What are the unexamined assumptions about time REGARDING this experiment?

Again, you are attempting to continue the discussion without acknowledging what I am proposing about time. Until you are willing to do that, then it is impossible for me to answer your question without you misunderstanding the answer.

And at this point you are actually dependent on that misunderstanding. It is only by continuing to misunderstand this that you can continue pretending to be defending your philosophical position.

1) Do you understand the 2PC hypothesis about the nature of time?
2) Do you accept it is scientifically and logically possible?
3) If not, why not.

Why is this so difficult?

Answer: because 2PC is actually correct, and you can't accept that is even a possibility. The moment you acknowledge the hypothesis and start evaluating the consequences, I've got you.

And you know it. Or at least you know it enough to be sufficiently fearful of it to have let this discussion descend to the current level of absurdity.