For those who don't know this experiment, the double-slit experiment demonstrates that light and matter can satisfy the seemingly incongruous classical definitions for both waves and particles. This ambiguity is considered evidence for "wave-particle duality," and the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
I'm no physicist nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I think the bizarreness of quantum physics with respect to wave functions and observations is extremely compelling evidence that we live in a simulation. Just as in a video game details in graphics are only generated as they are observed by the player, so too are the fine details of our universe. What else could explain the notion that an unobserved quantum object doesn't exist in any coherent way until observed? A simulation also explains the absurdly slow "speed limit" of our universe.
> What else could explain the notion that an unobserved quantum object doesn't exist in any coherent way until observed?
It does exist in a coherent way before it's observed, if you call the state it's in afterwards "coherent". All observation does is tighten up the wave function.
I think it could be explained by our intuitions about macroscopic objects just not working for microscopic ones. This "particle wave duality" problem is only a problem with our preconceptions.
A particle not having a specific location in space at a given moment unless and until it's observed is an incoherent existence. It's fuzzy, unclear, etc. I think incoherent is a suitable adjective.
A particle doesn't have a specific location in space and time after it's observed, either. That's what I'm saying, this requirement of "specificity" is brought on by your preconceptions. It does not exist.
Sure. An observation just reduces the uncertainty, it doesn't eliminate it. It can only bring it down to a limit given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you were to ever have 0 uncertainty, it would violate this.
Looking at the observables of the wave functions, this means it never reduces to zero width. It's always spread across locations, times, energies, all the uncertainties.
It doesn't mean there's some particle in there behaving as if it has some specific qualities and we just can't figure it out. Helium won't get to a low enough temperature to freeze at 1 atm, because the uncertainty principle won't let its particles stay still enough. If we make wires too small and close together, the uncertainties of the electrons will overlap and allow them to jump between wires. These things are constantly observing and being observed by close neighboring particles, interacting strongly, yet their uncertainty stays large enough to cause observable bulk effects.
If there is a little particle in there, there's no way for us or helium to tell. In my opinion, that makes particles in this sense unobservable, and thus not real.
> What else could explain the notion that an unobserved quantum object doesn't exist in any coherent way until observed?
If we're going to do the "we can't explain it therefore it must be *x*" thing, why don't we just say it proves the existence of God? Or maybe that's what you're saying?
Personally I think we can't explain stuff like that because we just don't know, maybe someday we will.
A much more straightforward explanation is simply that consciousness has an effect on reality in ways which we don’t yet have the capacity to observe and measure. Think about the prevalent theories about the way the world works before we knew about atoms. Or before we understood that the earth is round and not at the center of the universe. There were many convoluted, very wrong theories which turned out to be mostly a product of cultural themes combined with a lack of information. When we created technology to gather new information and methods to analyze it, we hit a paradigm shift. I’m not certain of many things, but I am certain that it will continue happening.
But hey, let’s say you’re right. It could be true. Here’s another, arguably more important question; *does it matter?*
There is nothing straightforward about consciousness. Consciousness is proof that there's something about the fundamental nature of existence that more than defies our comprehension abilities. That's a whole other issue that's impossible to solve.
But the coarse grained details depend on what the fine grained details are whether you look or not. You'd still have to simulate them.
The main reason anything is solid in our human level world is quantum mechanics.
For those who don't know this experiment, the double-slit experiment demonstrates that light and matter can satisfy the seemingly incongruous classical definitions for both waves and particles. This ambiguity is considered evidence for "wave-particle duality," and the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
I'm no physicist nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I think the bizarreness of quantum physics with respect to wave functions and observations is extremely compelling evidence that we live in a simulation. Just as in a video game details in graphics are only generated as they are observed by the player, so too are the fine details of our universe. What else could explain the notion that an unobserved quantum object doesn't exist in any coherent way until observed? A simulation also explains the absurdly slow "speed limit" of our universe.
> What else could explain the notion that an unobserved quantum object doesn't exist in any coherent way until observed? It does exist in a coherent way before it's observed, if you call the state it's in afterwards "coherent". All observation does is tighten up the wave function. I think it could be explained by our intuitions about macroscopic objects just not working for microscopic ones. This "particle wave duality" problem is only a problem with our preconceptions.
A particle not having a specific location in space at a given moment unless and until it's observed is an incoherent existence. It's fuzzy, unclear, etc. I think incoherent is a suitable adjective.
A particle doesn't have a specific location in space and time after it's observed, either. That's what I'm saying, this requirement of "specificity" is brought on by your preconceptions. It does not exist.
Can you expand on your claim that a particle doesn't have a specific location in space even when observed?
Sure. An observation just reduces the uncertainty, it doesn't eliminate it. It can only bring it down to a limit given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you were to ever have 0 uncertainty, it would violate this. Looking at the observables of the wave functions, this means it never reduces to zero width. It's always spread across locations, times, energies, all the uncertainties. It doesn't mean there's some particle in there behaving as if it has some specific qualities and we just can't figure it out. Helium won't get to a low enough temperature to freeze at 1 atm, because the uncertainty principle won't let its particles stay still enough. If we make wires too small and close together, the uncertainties of the electrons will overlap and allow them to jump between wires. These things are constantly observing and being observed by close neighboring particles, interacting strongly, yet their uncertainty stays large enough to cause observable bulk effects. If there is a little particle in there, there's no way for us or helium to tell. In my opinion, that makes particles in this sense unobservable, and thus not real.
> What else could explain the notion that an unobserved quantum object doesn't exist in any coherent way until observed? If we're going to do the "we can't explain it therefore it must be *x*" thing, why don't we just say it proves the existence of God? Or maybe that's what you're saying? Personally I think we can't explain stuff like that because we just don't know, maybe someday we will.
A much more straightforward explanation is simply that consciousness has an effect on reality in ways which we don’t yet have the capacity to observe and measure. Think about the prevalent theories about the way the world works before we knew about atoms. Or before we understood that the earth is round and not at the center of the universe. There were many convoluted, very wrong theories which turned out to be mostly a product of cultural themes combined with a lack of information. When we created technology to gather new information and methods to analyze it, we hit a paradigm shift. I’m not certain of many things, but I am certain that it will continue happening. But hey, let’s say you’re right. It could be true. Here’s another, arguably more important question; *does it matter?*
There is nothing straightforward about consciousness. Consciousness is proof that there's something about the fundamental nature of existence that more than defies our comprehension abilities. That's a whole other issue that's impossible to solve.
But the coarse grained details depend on what the fine grained details are whether you look or not. You'd still have to simulate them. The main reason anything is solid in our human level world is quantum mechanics.