There’s actually no way to prove or disprove consciousness collapse theories, as even if an unmonitored detector causes collapse, you only know about it when a consciousness is reviewing the data. So at best it can be said that direct consciousness collapse theories aren’t true, but AFAIK the ones still around are all indirect (i.e. collapse occurs at the point you are reviewing the data).
We could similarly talk about the “woo woo” of multiverse theories and how there’s no proof for Everett’s interpretation (despite being one of the few popular theories not to need an invalidation of an assumption in the Frauchiger-Renner paradox).
But no proof doesn’t equal “not true.”
All QM interpretations are up in the air, and an appeal to Copenhagen interpretation is probably one of the most nonsensical given a specific interpretation doesn’t even exist for that one and it’s effectively just become euphemistic for “shut up and calculate.”
When which slit a photon goes through is unobserved, it behaves like a wave and self interferes so many photons create an interference pattern with stripes where self-interactions prevented any photons from appearing.
When the photon is interacted with in a way which leaves permanent information about which slit it went through, it behaves like a particle and the pattern from many photons looks ‘ballistic’ like you were shooting tiny balls through each slit.
So in the meme when he’s not looking at the slits, there’s stripes, and when he’s looking it’s a ballistic pattern.
Which is why QM interpretations are considered to be part of Physics philosophy as you can see the link to the weighty writeup on the Copenhagen Interpretation is part of Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
But all interpretations are part of philosophy and are currently not falsifiable. Not just the ones someone may not like.
Again, the theory would be that collapse (including the state of what is on the paper) occurs upon review of the paper.
Consciousness collapse theories are particularly interesting in the context of the quantum eraser variations of the double slit experiment.
Personally my favorite interpretations ever since reading the Asking photons where they’ve been paper have been ones incorporating forward and backwards wave functions like the two-state vector formalism or the transactional interpretation.
It’s thought provoking to look at experimental results under different interpretation contexts, and is one of the things that frustrating in people thinking there’s merit to trying to “pick a team.”
Not everything needs to be a team sport, and a variety of interpretations tends to be a good thing as each prompts different types of experiments by their various supporters.
While it doesn’t address the topic of consciousness, you might find some of how this sort of “backwards in time change” is being applied today interesting:
Which led to what’s currently my favorite titled paper, Stable facts, relative facts: arxiv.org/abs/2006.15543
So one of the challenges that would arise from layers of delayed/hidden observations would be whether you’d even have universal agreement at the final review. i.e. The computer might have observed the cat as alive and baked a cake celebrating it, but then you open the box to a dead cat, each having correctly observed a result, just separated enough that they didn’t need to agree.
I know this is a really vague question, but it’s been on my mind A LOT lately. I’m specifically asking about people fighting on behalf of a group that is subject to oppression of some kind. 3 years ago, with all of the protests in America that included violence majorly against property and minorly against people but were...
If you want a diamond necklace that you can’t afford, it is necessary to steal it in order to have it.
It is not justified to steal it simply because it was necessary to meet your goals.
You are implicitly assuming that the necessity of self-preservation equates justification on the premise that self-preservation is a just result.
I don’t agree.
If two soldiers are fighting for their lives against each other, it may be necessary for each to survive to kill the other.
But the family of the one that dies may not see their loved one’s death as justified even if the family of the one that survived sees it that way.
Your self-preservation is worthless to me, and thus justifies nothing. My own self-preservation is literally worth everything to me - and yet if still does not justify my taking everything from you, even if I deem it necessary to achieve my own desires and goals, any more than my desire for a necklace I cannot afford justifies its theft.
There is a distinction between things like stealing bread to save a life where a necessary action is justified by the good that comes out of it and stealing bread to throw away in order to achieve a thrill. Both are necessary to their goals, but one has a goal that justifies the necessary action while the other does not.
I’m saying that there is no goal or good in existence that justifies the inherit evil of mass violence, even if there are a myriad of ways in which mass violence might be necessary to one’s goals, with those ranging from ethnic cleansing to fighting tyranny.
Ok, let’s stay within the confines of individual self-preservation.
If it is necessary for you to have a new organ to survive, but not enough are available through organ donation programs, does the fact that it is necessary to your survival mean that acquiring an organ from an unwilling donor (directly or though black market proxy) is a justified action?
How about a murderer that killed someone and left witnesses? If they are caught, it would mean they are sentenced to death. So it is necessary for their continued self-preservation to minimize the chances of being caught. Does that make their murder of the witnesses of their earlier crime justified?
Your pithy take on necessity = justification is BS at even a cursory examination.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have freed the slaves. Just that neither the Union nor the Confederate killing of each other was justified. I’m not saying that the US shouldn’t have fought in WW2. Just that bombing Hiroshima wasn’t justified.
You are the one conflating necessity with justification. And as such you seem to not be able to wrap your head around that while I’m saying mass violence is never justified, that doesn’t mean I’m saying the relative necessity for admirable goals means it was in the best interest of the US to have had a show of overwhelming force at the end of the WW2 conflict in mind of Stalin’s USSR post-war or that Sherman was wise to burn crops as he marched through the South to reduce supplies for Confederate opposition.
Edit: Also, thank you for making my point about how the notion of justified violence is a slippery slope that can easily end up justifying atrocities by relativist moralizing there with the whole “by any means necessary.”
The real issue at hand is whether or not we’re talking about moral relativism or absolutism.
If we are endorsing relativism, then all actions have a relative frame of reference by which they are justified (i.e. Bob’s killing Jane).
My stance is that in terms of absolutism, there is no such thing as justified mass violence, and that while it is certainly possible for mass violence to be a lesser evil absolutely, and thus easily argued as a moral good relative to the alternative, that ultimately it remains an evil under all circumstances objectively, and at best can be a lesser evil regarded absolutely.
Do you include the 1804 massacres of the French with the mass rape of women and killing of children by Dessalines which followed the Haitian revolt in that intrinsic good?
Climate is fucked, animals continue to go extinct even more, our money will be worth nothing the coming years… What motivation do I even have to care to keep going? The world is ran and basically owned by corrupt rich people, there’s poverty, war, etc. It makes me sick to my stomach the way to world is. So I ask, why bother...
While climate is new, corruption among ruling classes is a story as old as civilization.
Was living ever motivated?
Well, one of the differences between now and then is the access to bad information.
If you were living in a village and a village far away from you was all killed off, maybe you’d hear about it eventually.
Today, you’d be able to see photos the same day.
So online access is overstimulating your “wow this is screwed” circuitry in ways you wouldn’t have experienced decades, centuries, millennia ago.
Maybe a bit of a break from online news would be helpful.
The world has always sucked and had issues. But you were just way less likely to be constantly aware of it.
If anything, the past few years show some incredible promise for things changing in terms of corruption among ruling classes, even if the climate is long term going to completely screw us.
But humanity was never going to last forever, and whether or not you are part of the last hurrah for the species shouldn’t necessarily detract from your experience in the here and now of it.
Find your own meaning and path on a relative basis, and be less caught up in existential dread, especially given there’s little benefit to absorbing yourself in the latter.
I think I’ve settled on the latter. Disagreement is maybe best communicated by the absence of an upvote? And downvotes work best when they signal something that is just off base, and while not reportable, is not appreciated at a broad cultural level.
I personally can’t wait to see communities like r/hiphopheads, r/internetisbeautiful, r/listentothis, r/battlestations… join lemmy and become as active as they are on reddit. what are some of y’all fav?
Double-slit (lemmy.ml)
At what point is violence on a large scale justified?
I know this is a really vague question, but it’s been on my mind A LOT lately. I’m specifically asking about people fighting on behalf of a group that is subject to oppression of some kind. 3 years ago, with all of the protests in America that included violence majorly against property and minorly against people but were...
There's a reason they went to war over Helen of Troy (slrpnk.net)
Rent requirements in the US are nuts (i.imgur.com)
With the way the world's going, is there even a point to anything anymore?
Climate is fucked, animals continue to go extinct even more, our money will be worth nothing the coming years… What motivation do I even have to care to keep going? The world is ran and basically owned by corrupt rich people, there’s poverty, war, etc. It makes me sick to my stomach the way to world is. So I ask, why bother...
Downvotes = “I disagree” or “this is bad and you should feel bad”?
I think I’ve settled on the latter. Disagreement is maybe best communicated by the absence of an upvote? And downvotes work best when they signal something that is just off base, and while not reportable, is not appreciated at a broad cultural level.
Can lemmy be used as a blog (with comment section)?
I am looking for a fediverse solution for a blog and I tried it with writefreely, but it has some disadvantages I can’t live with....
What are some reddit communities you wish to see live and more active on lemmy?
I personally can’t wait to see communities like r/hiphopheads, r/internetisbeautiful, r/listentothis, r/battlestations… join lemmy and become as active as they are on reddit. what are some of y’all fav?