Is the universe participatory, or objective? Do the laws depend

define observer

>>8230548

Good one. Define "observer" in a 4chan thread. Haven't entire books been written on determining what constitutes an oberserver, especially in quantum mechanics?

>>8229899

I would argue objective, in that there is existence and a set of laws and conditions that govern it outside our perceptions.

An example would be hallucinogens: Substances that alter our perception of reality and stimulate/inhibit our senses. If I took a hit of Salvia around a group of sober people and saw humpty dumpty appear out of nowhere and the colors get all weird colors for five mons there would be two different subjective interpretations of an objective reality between the individual and the group.

Schrödinger equation and confirmed experimental observation of delayed choice quantum eraser prove that reality is subjective. This is unequivocal evidence, determinism is an illusion at best and the realists have held back science for nearly a century with their butthurt.

>>8230564
You're peddling ambiguity. "Observer" in quantum mechanics can be a bunch of air molecules.

When you use the word "observer" in any other context, usually you're referring to a conscious intelligent being.

>>8232226
>"Observer" in quantum mechanics can be a bunch of air molecules.

No it can't. What caused the wave-function of those molecules to collapse?

>>8232242
The idiotic formulations of quantum mechanics did.
There won't ever be a unified field theory if poor present axiomatizations will be held as an unquestioned dogma.

>>8232242
Okay, here's the thing: If you know nothing about quantum mechanics, don't pretend you know anything about quantum mechanics.

>>8232223
>determinism is an illusion
... on the tiny quantum scale,
yes; but on the larger scale,
it becomes a dominant factor.

>>8232578

Oh deary me, it's clear who doesn't understand quantum mechanics. Go and tell Von Neumann what you think.

>>8232605

That's just your opinion man. Quantum effects like duality are observed in photons, particles, atoms and even large molecules. Last I looked, everything was made out of those things, what's the demarcation to you? It's mainstream science to accept that quantum effects operate on all levels of scale, it's just the ranges of probabilities change.

Regardless, there is no objective determinism. #dealwithit #crymoar #faget #rekt

>>8232683
I'm not the one pretending that an "observer" in quantum mechanics needs to be a conscious person; we know that decoherence will set in if the particle in superposition interacts with any kind of macroscopic measurement apparatus, including air molecules.

None of this is deep or new. You're misusing language based on your own ignorance, if you want esoteric pseudoscience, go to /x/

>>8232698

Wow such butthurt. Why don't you write a letter to Einstein he was pretty butthurt over it too. Meanwhile delayed choice quantum eraser proves otherwise.

>>8232690
>#dealwithit #crymoar #faget #rekt

Anypoint you might have had is moot.
>>>/b/

>>8232698

Wow man you sure are mad.

>I'm not the one pretending that an "observer" in quantum mechanics needs to be a conscious person;

I don't see that directly stated, but it is clear that QM operates on some form of information record, which has been proven experimentally. Also on the subject, prove that there is a wave function collapse without any conscious observer. I can prove that there is with one. This is science after all.

>we know that decoherence will set in if the particle in superposition interacts with any kind of macroscopic measurement apparatus, including air molecules.

>air molecules spontaneously collapse to observe

:^)

>>8232704

Pretty much the level of your understanding.

>>8232702
>>8232718
Nice samefagging.
>Everyone who corrects me on my scientific ignorance must be butthurt.
Yeah or maybe you're just wrong while pretending you know better.

>wave function collapse
There is no wave function collapse. There is only decoherence.

>>8232702
>delayed choice quantum eraser proves otherwise.
You don't understand how it works, or you read a crackpot website that explains it poorly

Dirac explains it perfectly well in the first pages of his book. When you do a measurment, you can't avoid effecting the system you are measuring. However, there is a point so small where the effect of the measurement destroys information. That's when quantum mechanics kick in.