Question about the delayed choice quantum eraser

[Dave Moore]

Hello,

 

I am brand new to the forum and I am wondering what theories there are that use determinism as a posit to explain reverse causality to everyone's satisfaction?

 

Thanks, Dave

[Strange]

Reverse causality is an explanation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. (It is an interpretation of quantum theory; one of many.) SO I'm not sure why determinism would be needed (or how it would come into it).

[Dave Moore]

I mean, in the double slit eraser experiment, where a delayed choice to observe detector information,

Are there not several explanations for the reverse causality involved? And don't some theories posit that determinism must be involved? This would help to explain how information could go back in time, since it cold be said that whatever choice is made, that choice was always going to be the one chosen.

I am assuming the resulting image on the screen would be occurring immediately rather than later when the choice was made. There could never be any other choice. Both past and future events would always be nocked together as if a single event.

[Strange]

Are you thinking of super determinism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

[Dave Moore]

Yes. Super determinism. I maintain that super determinism would be an entirely adequate explanation. But it seems that several premises must be considered along with determinism, such as subjective reality, belief as an energetic variable, and the manifestation of belief (i.e., belief manifests reality). This isn't a claim, but a logic problem that appears unanswerable, which is rather weird, don't you think?

There seems to be a problem with inclusion of the four premises simultaneously. Not one of them, but ANY one of them if the other three are inferred, which points towards cognitive dissonance.

[Strange]

I guess one problem is, that it isn't possible to test super determinism (I don't think). Which takes it outside of science.

[Dave Moore]

I hear what you're saying. You just stated the test I am supplying is not scientific. I say you are guessing, which isn't scientific. I am offering this test to anyone. Here it is! It took years for me to figure out how to test for proof that super determinism was the answer, and finally, I realized that most everyone had trouble conceiving it.

I set up a logic test, where even while it wouldn't always prove super determinism was the answer, it would at least show that the problem wasn't in the supplied information. It was in the mind of the questioner.

I would use four premises in a logic problem. These would each be, by themselves, understandable variables,

I tested those four premises on people.

You could get them to completely agree with three. In one particular case of a good friend, who knows my work very well, he simply cannot imagine anything like subjective reality. For example, though he is extremely intelligent, when I ask him why, he says, "Because the world seems absolutely objective." I say, "Yes, I know. But we're only supposing. If belief manifests reality, then you would always be absolutely convinced that your world was empirically shared".

Others might imagine subjective reality, but they have trouble with determinism. They might add in the "fact" that quantum indeterminacy would not occur if super determinism were true. Of course, every perception of indeterminacy in a super deterministic reality would be the expected one, so that's a case of adding a new variable outside of the rules of logic. It isn't one of the four premises allowed.

And so I set up a logic problem. It had to be done in a forum setting. Then witnesses could judge when individual premises were added or subtracted willy-nilly.

This was all based on the idea that while awakened Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama could easily conceive of the four aspects of reality, the other 99.9999% of the population could not.

Some very bright physicists joined the Dalai Lama at a conference (see link), the purpose being to share the wisdom of the Buddhist monks and discover how their knowledge could benefit science, or if it could be integrated In some way.

I highly recommend this video in helping to explain their way of seeing reality.

This is, by the way, not religion or philosophy. It is quite provable but it must first be shown through the use of a logic test that the limitation in understanding it comes from a form of cognitive dissonance.

My hope is that someone here would accept the challenge and attempt to prove me wrong.

There is no better or more noble science than the one that uses pure self-provable logic to arrive at an answer. In that sense, each person proves the answer to himself individually, with no dependence on mathematics.

If anyone is interested in why reverse causality is possible, the answer is in the four variables, none of which are hidden.

Oh--- can't drop that link. Youtube, 'The Nature of Reality-Theory of Relativity-Quantum Science and Buddhist Thought'

[Strange]

I mean, in the double slit eraser experiment, where a delayed choice to observe detector information,

Are there not several explanations for the reverse causality involved? And don't some theories posit that determinism must be involved?

There is one theory/explanation (quantum mechanics) but there are multiple interpretations of this. They are all equivalent and cannot be distinguished by experiments - if they could, they wouldn't be interpretations.

I don't understand what the logic problem is. Was there a question in there?

[Dave Moore]

I am not saying anything except, I know the logic problem supplied is not solvable by science. I am challenging anyone to hold all four premises in their mind at once. I say witnesses will see that strangely enough, the IQ goes down the drain when they try.

I am not saying anything else. Just try it, in writing. Ask questions. I will show you that your questions are obviously not allowed by the rules of logic. That should cause any intelligent person to be shocked.

Why complicate things? If you could hold all four together and prove it, you would understand what I am saying, but only a very rare person could do this.

I claim nothing else. Nothing. Show me how wrong I am! Try!

I'm here to answer any question. It's not a magic trick, it simply points out that people aren't aware that the beliefs they hold so dear are actually not logical at all. I figured you physicist types wouldn't believe this was true, but here's the challenge.

Maybe someone else will try this?

[Strange]

I am not saying anything except, I know the logic problem supplied is not solvable by science.

 

 

Could you state clearly what this logic problem is. I can see several references to it, but not a clear statement of the problem. Thanks.

 

 

 

I am challenging anyone to hold all four premises in their mind at once.

 

What are these four premises?

[Dave Moore]

1) Super determinism is true

 

2) Reality is subjective, meaning there exists no single empirical reality.

 

3) Belief manifests reality

 

4) Belief is energetic; We have a limited quantity of energy to manifest. While easily agreed with shared beliefs (observation) require little energy, a thing that we consider impossible will usually not manifest at all, especially when we are alone.

[Dave Moore]

The four, together, create an explanation. An explanation of not only the delayed choice quantum eraser, but a lot mire.

The proof is there, in the four premises. None may be added and none may be subtracted.

The reason science cannot stay within the bounds of the four and create a new theory, is because if they could, it wouldn't be a theory any more. And that is considered impossible by science. The energy expenditure would be too high to manifest.

Luckily, the test I've provided will show how the way science argues the question immediately becomes corrupted---- unfairly. Others can see this because the whole thought experiment is broken down and no one variable of the four is unto itself difficult to visualize. it is only as a group that the four become impossible to visualize together.

The proof is there. You might say that if belief manifests reality, and subjective reality is true, then a paradox would ensue.

I would ask, how so? The limitation of energy to manifest a paradox would prevent that.

I would say that the future is already laid out.

You might mention quantum indeterminism.

I would say, that is only a feature of manifestation. That manifestation would always support your expectation no matter what, due to the requirement that an observation must be a low energy percept.

I will add, in a subjective "universe", the universe is actually a personal expression of one's subconscious mind. The dynamics and details of that universe are symbols and nothing else. Because science has unified those details by use of mathematics, the symbology appears to create an objective reality.

Delayed choice eraser scenarios are easily proven on a macro scale. It has been done, though the scientists who ran the experiments had no idea of the connection to quantum mechanics. Google the chicken-robot experiment, done in France in the eighties. Also, I have devised a few tests related to placebo study where a choice tomorrow to observe (or not) as yet unknown past cure rates will affect the cure rates, as follows:

Patients are given a pill. This can be a real pill or a placebo. What matters is the patient believes the pill is effective.

1000 patients, say, are tested for pain relief. e.g., migraine. They fill out a score card with name and a score between zero and one hundred, with one hundred being a complete remission of pain, and zero being no change.

The score card, as yet unseen by anyone, is put into a sealed box. The box is then divided into two separate boxes by a yes-no random number generator.

Two weeks later, or a year, or ten years later, a lecture about placeboes is held where audience members are asked to form a line and "bless" or wish well patients whose names are in one of the two boxes chosen again by the number generator(the other is simply stored). All part of a study.

The lecture audience are not told the patients left the research lab a long time ago.

The two boxes are compared. It will be seen that the box that had been blessed would have a higher cure rate than the stored box.

This mirrors exactly the conditions of a delayed choice test, erase or not.

[Strange]

1) Super determinism is true

 

2) Reality is subjective, meaning there exists no single empirical reality.

 

3) Belief manifests reality

 

4) Belief is energetic; We have a limited quantity of energy to manifest. While easily agreed with shared beliefs (observation) require little energy, a thing that we consider impossible will usually not manifest at all, especially when we are alone.

 

 

I don't see how these constitute a logic problem. There are four independent beliefs. One could believe any or all of them. They could even all be true, I suppose.

 

Personally, I don't believe any of them. But I wouldn't be surprised (based on the things I have seen posted on science forums) if there weren't people who believed all of them.

Note that they are all beliefs, because they are not objectively testable. As such, they are outside the scope of science. Whether they are true or not.

The four, together, create an explanation.

 

If you say so. But so does saying "God did it like that". It is not a scientific explanation though (because it is not testable).

Delayed choice eraser scenarios are easily proven on a macro scale. It has been done, though the scientists who ran the experiments had no idea of the connection to quantum mechanics.

 

 

Of course they understood the connection to quantum mechanics. Why would they be doing the experiment if not?

 

 

 

Google the chicken-robot experiment, done in France in the eighties.

 

This one: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-robot-behavioral-quail-chicks.html ?

 

If so: how is that relevant.

If not: please be more specific.

 

 

The two boxes are compared. It will be seen that the box that had been blessed would have a higher cure rate than the stored box.

This mirrors exactly the conditions of a delayed choice test, erase or not.

 

My guess would be that there will be no difference in results. But until someone performs the experiment... (Let us know when you have done it and the results are published.)

Edited March 14, 2017 by Strange

[Dave Moore]

The four premises don't need to be true to form a logic exercise. They aren't beliefs to me. But they may. for the purpose of this discourse, be considered as, say, an interesting puzzle.

 

I don't want to get into whether my own macro delayed choice experiment has been done, and yes, it is exactly like one chicken robot experiment (even if the results weren't understood), though the link I tried to add wouldn't drop into the text area because I am not proficient at how to do it. And no, it was telekinesis I believe they were testing for.

 

You are missing the point. The fact that you agree a delayed choice on a macro scale is enough. I don't want to go to battle over who has read and believed or not believed some written information.

This is getting off track where I would rather see the logic problem attempted. Your job would be to show that those four premises lead nowhere. And I'm saying you will not be capable of shooting down that claim.

 

This exercise has to do with my prediction that no one can tell me I'm wrong, that is, prove to me that those four "posits" or "variables" or "premises" could not lead to a self-proving conclusion. It matters not whether they do lead to a conclusion for the purposes here.

Only that I prove to you that you will become illogical in attempting it period.

That statement alone should at least cause you to snicker at the woo-woo as you disassemble him intellectually.

 

Go ahead. Say, "It can't be this posit or that posit is possible because..."

And if you know anything about logic, you must show in words that I am incapable of using only those four to draw a conclusion.

 

I am hoping as well that you could imagine that each of those variables alone might possibly by itself be true.

You probably don't know a whole lot about the science of belief, just as I am no physicist. However, you might imagine that it just might be that physics is missing some key variable that will never be known because IF belief manifests then science's beliefs will always fail to manifest proof of it, which is a Catch-22.

I have found a way around that Catch-22 after 28 years of work. Its kind of like that parable about the man who asks a question to a another man at a fork in the road which way leads to the city of truth, and which to the city of liars. But he has no idea whether the man is from the city of liars or the city of truth

The way is to show in a public forum that your beliefs are preventing you from arguing sensibly (to the satisfaction of witnesses) that I am wrong in saying the four posits lead somewhere.

If you don't want to try, maybe someone else will want to make me look stupid. But arguing about information pales in significance to fundamental realization, where 1 + 2 x 5 - 9 is an example of a question that can be answered subjectively more axiomatically (bet your life) than trusting your text book to be right.

The way I see it, you, a believer in science, claim to have a machine that can potentially answer any question. You say, "Okay, watch this! Machine, is what I just said true?"

Edited March 14, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

I don't want to get into whether my own macro delayed choice experiment has been done, and yes, it is exactly like one chicken robot experiment, though the link I tried to add wouldn't drop into the text area because I am not proficient at how to do it.

 

 

The only chicken-robot experiment I could find was that chicks that grew up with a robot parent-substitute did better than those with no parent. How is that relevant?

 

If you can't post a link to the experiment you are referring to, then just be more specific: names of the scientists, which journal the results were published in, when, etc.

 

 

 

This is getting off track where I would rather see the logic problem attempted. Your job would be to show that those four premises lead nowhere.

 

Your job would be to show that they lead anywhere.

 

Superdetermnism is a known explanation of delayed choice (and other experiments). So why are the others needed?

 

 

 

This exercise has to do with my prediction that no one can tell me I'm wrong

 

1. "Prove me wrong" is the traditional rallying cry of the crackpot, so please don't go there.

 

2. In order to be proved wrong, you either need some quantitative predictions that can be tested or some formal logic that can be analysed.

 

Some general claim that your ideas explain everything is not really refutable.

 

 

 

And if you know anything about logic, you must show in words that I am incapable of using only those four to draw a conclusion.

 

I have studied formal logic. If you employ some, then I will attempt to critique it.

 

So far you seem to be using "logic" in the informal sense of "it makes sense to me". But feel free to prove me wrong.

 

 

You probably don't know a whole lot about the science of belief

 

Is there a science of belief? Is this part of psychology? If so, I don't know much about it (apart form a few studies on religiosity.)

 

 

where 1 + 2 x 5 - 9 is an example of a subjective truth that is logical.

 

How is that a subjective truth? It is a bit of arithmetic (giving the result 2). It is neither true or false.

 

 

 

The way I see it, science claims to have a machine that can potentially answer any question.

 

Completely wrong.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Strange

[Dave Moore]

I am getting pretty sick of your snotty "Look at me!" responses. I keep repeating what I am doing here, which I have repeated enough times that any six year old could understand, and I'm not going to repeat it again.

You can't do the logic problem because you are exactly like the machine that knows everything. Just ask you if that's true.

 

Anyone else?

Edited March 14, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Tim88]

Hello,

 

I am brand new to the forum and I am wondering what theories there are that use determinism as a posit to explain reverse causality to everyone's satisfaction?

 

Thanks, Dave

 

The delayed choice quantum eraser merely makes a selection of received information; there is no reason to assume "reverse causality".

[Dave Moore]

Thank you Tim88. I understand, however, that the choice to erase or not can be made at any time after detectors have registered which slit and recorded the information on a CD, for example. A thought experiment might therefore cause (or not) an event to occur by radio signal on the dark side of the Moon. For example, to kill your enemy where he works at a Moon base... or not.

The Moon base would be visited afterwards, but just before that, you would make a choice to observe or not the detector information.

This might be the first murder in history that was accomplished years after the body had turned to dust.

You can explain that? If a theory, is it just a best guess? Many worlds?

[Strange]

You can explain that? If a theory, is it just a best guess? Many worlds?

 

 

It is explained by the non-locality of quantum effects. One interpretation of this is Many Worlds. Another is Retrocasuality. There are several others. They are all exactly equivalent.

 

 

 

The four, together, create an explanation.

 

Can this explanation make quantitative predictions?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

OK, since you're posting a pet idea now instead of asking a question about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the rules say this needs to be moved to Speculations. But without a way to test this idea ("belief manifests reality"?!), there's no science to be done. It's all just wishful thinking and wild-ass guesswork, and there are other sites for that.

 

I need a direction for this thread pretty quick. Do you want to defend this idea with evidence in Speculations? It can't stay in Quantum Theory without some science.

[Dave Moore]

It doesn't matter what it explains. I can see, once more, that you are missing the point. I have made a claim. The claim is that you will not argue coherently when asked to disprove the four supplied premises.

So far. you are proving that you can't stay within the four premises.

You must know what I'm asking for, but something is preventing you from speaking coherently about the topic itself.

I even gave you a couple of practice arguments.

Do you completely miss the point? I posit that reality is subjective and you immediately bring in a lot of objectively derived information. It's an exercise that points to a problem with assumptions. Belief is posited to be energetic. It requires, as I already said, that a thing deemed impossible requires so much energy that it cannot even be seen. So far, you have proved that to be correct. You can't see what I'm asking for. You are intellectually blind to it, unable to overcome your own energetic limitations.

This is completely normal, and I predicted it.

[Strange]

It doesn't matter what it explains. I can see, once more, that you are missing the point. I have made a claim. The claim is that you will not argue coherently when asked to disprove the four supplied premises.

 

 

You haven't provided any reason why those four premises should be accepted or that they need arguing against.

 

As far as I can tell, they are just pointless beliefs that explain nothing. You have yet to demonstrate that they have any explanatory value.

 

They are not objectively testable and so cannot be disproved.

 

I posit that reality is subjective and you immediately bring in a lot of objectively derived information.

 

A lot of people belief that and a lot don't. It makes no practical difference.

 

 

 

Belief is posited to be energetic.

 

In a metaphorical sense, maybe. But unless you can explain how this energy can be measured and detected, it again seems a fairly pointless belief.

 

 

 

This is completely normal, and I predicted it.

 

Ah! A prediction. That sounds like science. Where was this prediction? Or is this like those predictions where you roll a six and then say "I knew I was going to do that" (you didn't of course).

 

You have progressed from asking questions to making baseless assertions and now to insults. Not a very constructive approach.

[Dave Moore]

To the moderator: You can move me anywhere you like. I have proven my point.

To strange: I have written enough. Go back and answer those questions yourself. I am done repeating myself.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Thread locked.

 

The OP has proven nothing, adduced zero evidence, and failed to provide even a basic rational argument for his contentions. In light of his latest post this thread has been locked to save us from more nonsense.

 

Do not re-open this topic without first confirming to a staff member that you are bringing more than bald assertions and soapboxing.

 

In future posts in the main science fora must be on a sound empirical or mathematical footing