Neoholographic

I'm not talking about the clustering of information that might give you a pretty mountanside or a snowflake. I'm talking about the encoding of information in the sequence of a storage medium and building the machinery to decode the information encoded in it's sequence. You even have information encoded into non coding sequences that regulate the expression of coding sequences. This is impossible to occur naturally. That's why I asked to give me the steps. If I say If if you walk into the house and see 3 pairs of shoes then meet me at Outback on Miles Street at 7 PM but if you see 5 pairs of shoes, meet me at Longhorn on 7th Street at 8:30 PM then I have encoded the sequence of my shoes with information. The shoes are the medium. The shoes don't create or encode themselves with information. It takes someone with intelligence to decode the information or I can build machinery to decode this information. This isn't the clustering of macro information to give you the appearence of the design of a snowflake. This is purpose and intelligent design of an encoded/decoding system that will rival any supercomputer in the world to today. It would be like a snowflake encoded with information to build a snowman or igloo and also encoded with information to build the machinery to decode that information as well as information to regulate the expression of coding regions. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/dna-code/ So again, we're talking about the encoding and decoding of information that's stored in the sequence of of a storage medium. How did this information naturally get stored on the sequence of a storage medium? How did the information to build machinery to decode this information get encoded on the sequence of a storage medium? How did the information to regulate the sequence of coding regions get encoded on the sequence of a storage medium? Secondly, evolution is modular. You have all of these parts that evolve that just work togother in complex ways to carry out different tasks. Again, this isn't a gap, this is a gulf. Why would materialism produce any parts that work together? If I'm designing a modular home, I make design 30 parts that I carry to the home site that just fit together and work together because that's the way it was designed. These parts are designed to work together. If you accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, then these parts evolve and voila! like magic they just work together. You have molucular machines with 50 different parts that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to work together. If I build a machine for a factory, it has all the right parts that's the right shape, size and they come together at the right angles that fit because they were designed that way by intelligence. Explain how this can occur naturally? I have designed programs that used sequences of symbols and letters to build a program but intelligence that lived before me encoded these sequences with meaning and information. I can go into a factory and look at any machine on the assembly line and see how sequence is encoded with information and intelligence build the machinery to decode this information. A natural interpretation of evolution can't happen.

I think this is a very interesting question the article raises. First let me say, I approach this debate in a different way. I say there’s a natural interpretation of evolution and there’s an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. I think a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It’s designed to separate people from God and a natural interpretation of evolution is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humans. It’s impossible for a storage medium to encode it’s sequence with information. This is the domain of intelligence. The sequence of objects or symbols don’t have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn’t encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information. Again, / and * don’t encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA. The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn’t first given meaning and encoded by intelligence? https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/how-can-evolution-occur-naturally-36722923c231 We know how intelligence can encode the sequence of a storage medium with information and build the machinery to decode it. This is how we build civilization. How can this occur naturally? What's the origin of information? He gives another example: My Nephew was over so there’s crayons, a deck of cards and a paper plate on my table. I can say: If the deck of cards, crayons and plate are in a sequence from left to right, then meet me at Subway on 4th St. I can also say, if the plate, deck of cards and crayons are on the table in a sequence from left to right, meet me Downtown at Chipolte on Market St. My mind, my intelligence has encoded sequence with information. This information can be decoded by another intelligence or if I construct the machinery to decode the information. The deck of cards, plate and crayons contain none of the information I want to encode. These things are just the medium. It’s the same with DNA. DNA is the medium encoded with information in the sequence of DNA letters ACTG. This shows that a natural interpretation of evolution isn’t just filled with gaps but it’s not possible. You would have to give a medium the agency of mind and intelligence. https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/how-can-evolution-occur-naturally-36722923c231 The article says it would be like a snowflake encoded with information to build a snowman or an igloo and it would be encoded with the information to build machinery that can decode the information on it's sequence. Again, how is this explained naturally? What were the steps and what medium did this? Did DNA encode it's sequence with information? If so how? When did DNA become like a mind? Did something outside of DNA encode it's sequence with information? If so what was the nature of this medium if it wasn't intelligent? How could it encode the sequence of a storage medium with information? We can even encode DNA with books, papers and DVD's now.

Have you read the recent Wigner friend's experiments? There's no evidence of a universal collapse of the wave function. In fact, collapse may not occur at all and Wigner's friend in the lab has just become a part of the S+O system as Rovelli says in his Relational quantum mechanics. All physical interactions are, at bottom, quantum interactions, and must ultimately be governed by the same rules. Thus, an interaction between two particles does not, in RQM, differ fundamentally from an interaction between a particle and some "apparatus". There is no true wave collapse, in the sense in which it occurs in the Copenhagen interpretation. Because "state" is expressed in RQM as the correlation between two systems, there can be no meaning to "self-measurement". If observer O measures system S, S's "state" is represented as a correlation between O and S. O itself cannot say anything with respect to its own "state", because its own "state" is defined only relative to another observer, O'. If the S+O compound system does not interact with any other systems, then it will possess a clearly defined state relative to O'. However, because O's measurement of S breaks its unitary evolution with respect to O, O will not be able to give a full description of the S+O system (since it can only speak of the correlation between S and itself, not its own behaviour). A complete description of the (S+O)+O' system can only be given by a further, external observer, and so forth. Taking the model system discussed above, if O' has full information on the S+O system, it will know the Hamiltonians of both S and O, including the interaction Hamiltonian. Thus, the system will evolve entirely unitarily (without any form of collapse) relative to O', if O measures S. The only reason that O will perceive a "collapse" is because O has incomplete information on the system (specifically, O does not know its own Hamiltonian, and the interaction Hamiltonian for the measurement). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics This is exactly what we see in the recent Wigner's friend experiments. The wave function "collapses" for Wigner's friend in the lab which is his fram of reference but it doesn't collapse for Wigner oustide of the lab. Wigner can still measure interference between his friend's record of what he measured and the photon that was measured. Here's some highlights from the paper. Again, you're saying what some suspect to be the result but it wasn't. Wigner's friend in the lab did't destroy the superposition when he measured the photon. The friend can even tell Wigner that a recorded outcome occurred without revealing the results and Wigner can still measure interference as I said. Again, there's no universal collapse of the wave function. This supports Rovelli and RQM which says these things are observer dependent. So "collapse" happens in Wigner's friend's reference frame but not for Wigner until he has knowledge of his friend's result. This is also in line with the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment and entanglement swapping experiments. This is exactly what happened when they carried out the experiment. All of these quotes are taken from the published paper Experimental test of local observer independence: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 If decoherence occurred and some universal collapse independent of the observer, then they shouldn't be able to measure interference. This supports Quantum Awareness. The only thing that collapses the wave function for Wigner is when he gains knowledge about the outcome of his friends measurement in the lab. It would be more profound if his friend lied to Wigner about the result of his measurement and then Wigner can still measure interference. How is the system aware Wigner is being lied to when Wigner isn't aware of it?

I think this is an interesting thought experiment. It's a variation of the Wigner's friend experiment which could go down as one of the most important thought experiments in science. There's been a lot of papers on Wigner's friend lately. I think it supports the consciousness or awareness of the observer in QM is needed to fully explain quantum mechanics. https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/can-wigners-friend-lie-c3fabeaa7bbc This would be an interesting experiment. If Wigner's friend calls and tells Wigner the truth about what was measured and the Wigner can't carry out an interference measurement, then the friend calls him and lies about the measurement and Wigner can still carry out an interference measurement, that would be huge. You would have to connect the wave function to the knowledge of an observer and what an observer knows or doesn't know about it's state. Here's some more recent Wigner friend studies: Experimental test of local observer independence https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 Quantum erasing the memory of Wigner's friend https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.09905 Wigner's friend is destroying the notion of materialism once again and posing serious questions about the role of the observer, consciousness and is there really an objective reality.

Sadly, you don't even understand the basics of the experiment. I'm done explaining and done with this forum. When you can't debate an issue, you do your best to hide it. The 2 threads have nothing to do with each other. Frauchiger and Renner are talking about the universality of QM which shows that 2 observers can measure different outcomes for the same event on a classical level. This is what universality means when talking about QM being applied to complex systems. This is the Mandela Effect but I'm done because you guys don't even understand the basics of the experiment.

What? That thread has nothing to do with the Mandela Effect. You people are so closed minded. You just don't want a thread with the Mandela Effect in the title. Especially one that uses science that shows support for the Mandela Effect. The two threads have nothing to do with each other. Shameful!

What you said makes no sense. Faulty memory? People remember Mandela dying in prison. People remember his funeral and news reports about his death. Again, if all is quantum like most physicist believe, then Frauchiger and Renner showed that around 8% of the time classical observers will get 2 different outcomes for the same event. Let me repeat. One friend (Anna) tosses a coin and (because she's luckily a physicist) makes a quantum message to send to her friend Brad. Brad (who is also a physicist) can pick up Anna's message and understand the result of the coin toss. The problems start when the Wigners open their boxes to check on their friends. According to Renner, when they open their boxes, they should conclude with certainty where the coin landed in the toss. However, their conclusions are inconsistent. “One says, ‘I’m sure it’s tails,’ and the other one says, ‘I’m sure it’s heads,’” Renner told Nature. The pair of Swiss physicists have managed to considerably upset modern physicists in the process of sharing their new deliberations. This is the Mandela Effect. Instead of, I'm sure it's heads and I'm sure it's tails it's I'm sure Mandela died in prison, I'm sure he didn't. You can't just chalk it up to everyone's an idiot with these mass false memories. When you look at Wigner's friend experiment, it supports the Relational interpretation of QM which is observer dependent many worlds without the ad hoc universal wave function.

Has Science provided evidence that supports the Mandela Effect? I say yes. The recent Wigner's friend experiment and work by Frauchiger and Renner support this. New Interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat Disrupts Quantum Mechanics It might be the most famous thought experiment in the world. A cat in a box could either be alive or dead -- and until that box was opened, one had to theorize that it could be both. Physicist Erwin Schrodinger described the scenario, and it became one of the basic explanations for quantum theory. Now, two physicists are challenging that riddle with their own version of the paradox. They replace the kitty with physicists conducting experiments. The result of their new theory has stumped other physicists. Physicists Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, were the first to pose the argument online in spring of 2016. And it's been debated hotly ever since. One friend (Anna) tosses a coin and (because she's luckily a physicist) makes a quantum message to send to her friend Brad. Brad (who is also a physicist) can pick up Anna's message and understand the result of the coin toss. The problems start when the Wigners open their boxes to check on their friends. According to Renner, when they open their boxes, they should conclude with certainty where the coin landed in the toss. However, their conclusions are inconsistent. “One says, ‘I’m sure it’s tails,’ and the other one says, ‘I’m sure it’s heads,’” Renner told Nature. The pair of Swiss physicists have managed to considerably upset modern physicists in the process of sharing their new deliberations. Link It's saying when you apply Quantum Theory to complex systems, you have this effect where 2 observers can observe 2 different outcomes for the same event. This effect would be small but noticeable and WE HAVE NOTICED! Just type in Mandela Effect or strange coincidences in Google search engine or on You Tube and you will see tons of examples. Here's the abstract from the recent Wigner's friend experiment. Abstract The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most markedly exposed in Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether the observers’ narratives can be reconciled has only recently been made accessible to empirical investigation, through recent no-go theorems that construct an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers. In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 I remember a guy everybody called Disco Bob. Everybody in the neighborhood was shocked when we heard Disco Bob had died. My Sister was friends with his Sister and remembers talking to her about Bob's death. One day my Sister was walking home and she saw Disco Bob. She screamed and ran because she just knew he was dead. Of course everyone laughed it off and explained it away. We were together with my Sister the other day and everyone was laughing and telling the Disco Bob story. Frauchiger and Renner said we would see this 1/12 of the time on a classical level. This is a little over 8% of the time and that sounds about right for the Mandela Effect and other strange coincidences. This is the way another article described the recent Wigner's friend experiment. A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/ This is the Mandela Effect, people remember 2 different histories for an event.A conscious observer can collapse many histories into a single shared history. This is because we know which measurement occurred or didn't occur and we know which branch of the wave function we're in. This would be groundbreaking to say the least and it would also confirm, once again, that QM destroys any notion of objective realism. If 2 histories of an event can be observed on occasion by 2 observers then how can you say what we experience is objectively real? It would say the universe we experience is more about our minds and the way we observe it not any objective physical reality. So you can have 2 universes in superposition for a singular event. In one universe, people are strongly coupled to history A(Mandela not dying in prison). They wouldn't be completely coupled to this history. Say it's 80% to 20%. In the other universe, there strongly coupled to history B(Mandela dying in prison). When these universes began to evolve as 2 separate universes, a small percentage of people from history B will end up in the first universe. They will remember Mandela dying in prison but most of the people will remember Mandela getting out of prison. There will also be people in the other universe who remember Mandela getting out of prison while most of the universe remembers him dying in prison. These things explain the Mandela Effect and other strange coincidences in obvious terms.

Good points! This is where you get all of the confusion. When you treat subatomic particles like classical particles you get paradox on top of paradox. This is because you're asking things like how can a particle be in two places at the same time. So now you're giving the attributes of a real but non physical wave function to particles and you get ridiculous notions like many worlds. I accept the multiverse of inflation which is about the expansion of space and limited configurations matter can be in. MWI is about applying attributes of something real but non physical to the physical and it makes no sense. The goal here is to reduce the role of the observer. Sean Carroll says the observer is no different from a rock. So when I wake up and turn to ESPN, I didn't make a conscious choice to do that, I'm just in some decohered branch of the wave function but then you also need universes with versions of me watching the other 2,000 plus cable channels. It makes no sense.

First, Professor Blood does rule out particles. Here's a direct quote from the Abstract. That's ruling them out. He has to couch it with cautious terms though because nothing in Science is truly proven outside of a mathematical theorem. With Relativity you still have to say if there isn't any evidence that comes along that changes things. Of course wave functions are not waves. That's why I titled the thread. The wave function is real but non physical according to quantum cryptography Again, you're just wasting time because you can't debate the issue. You have spent post after post talking about the semantics of QFT which have nothing to do with the thread.

No it doesn't. There's no difference but again, you want to debate semantics not substance. Very good point that goes to the substance of the debate. Calling them particles causes confusion because when people think of particles you think of particles of sand or particles of salt. If course these particles can't be in a superposition of states. So there's not a one to one correspondence between particles in the classical sense and subatomic particles. So it's better described as a wave with particle like properties. You then have a real but non physical wave function and some of the weirdness is removed because there's no need for a bunch of physical universes that makes no sense as Stephen Hawking said before he died. Taming the multiverse: Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the big bang

Sad, you can't debate or refute the issue so you keep bringing up non issues. If you want to start a separate thread about QFT then start it. There's mountains of evidence to debate like this. No Evidence for Particles Casey Blood Professor Emeritus of Physics Rutgers University https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf This is nothing new. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue because you can't refute the substance.

Look, I know you want to quibble with semantics because you can't refute the substance. So you talk about rules of the forum because you obviously want the thread moved to speculation. Sadly, for you, you're question is answered in the substance of the post and I'll repeat it again. Easily, it's what Quantum Field Theory says. QFT says particles are excitation's of underlying quantum fields. QFT doesn't say there aren't any particles. Here's another paper by Physicist Art Hobson. There are no particles, there are only fields https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf Again, I understand why you want to quibble with semantics instead of debating substance. It's because you don't like the argument but you can't refute it. The existence of particles as real is something that has been debated for years because of QFT.

Nope, very scientific. Just read the papers above. It's all laid out for you. I'm saying that particles don't have an existence separate from underlying quantum fields no more than droplets of water that for from huge waves have a separate existence from the ocean. Here's a key line from the Abstract. So there's no need to quibble about semantics when it's all laid out in the substance of the argument.

I think a little more elaboration on the issue would be more enlightening to the debate. Like I said, we only see particles acting like particles. If you fire a bunch of photons one photon at a time at the double slits, you know what you will get at the screen? A bunch of photons. They just form an interference pattern so you assume that these photons that always act like photons are somehow physically acting like waves though we never see it. Why can't the opposite assumption be valid based on the evidence listed above that the wave function is real/non physical and the particles never act like waves because they're excitation's of underlying quantum fields according to QFT?