tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post1063604707739246583..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Does the Double Slit Experiment Refute the Primacy of Existence?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47069788578668219532013-12-04T18:00:49.053-05:002013-12-04T18:00:49.053-05:00Ibnus wrote: “From double slit experiment we got i...Ibnus wrote: “From double slit experiment we got information 1/. existence require an observer. 2/. if an observer stop observe, the existence will be quickly disappeared.”<br /><br />This is simply ridiculous. And no, the double slit experiment does not show this at all. <br /><br />Notice how your interpretation of the experiment’s implications simply leads inexorably to an interminable infinite regress: if existence requires an observer, the observer needs an observer in order to exist, and that observer needs an observer to exist, etc., etc., etc. <br /><br />Theists apparently want to believe that the double slit experiment, so interpreted, serves their theistic faith commitments. But the implications drawn here are clearly not compatible with a form of theism which begins with a god (e.g., an observer) and then posits that it is the source of everything else. For the implications here would mean that even the theist’s god would need an observer beyond itself in order to exist, and that observer would need an observer, and so on and so on. <br /><br />That theists do not recognize this simply tells us that they are not looking at the issues involved here very closely, or at all honestly.<br /><br />Also notice that the theist is secretly employing the primacy of existence principle – the very principle which he seeks to unseat – when he makes the statement “the double slit experiment shows…” He’s essentially saying that this is what the experiment shows *regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, wants, wishes, imagines, hopes, etc.* In other words, he’s saying that the results of the experiment, whatever they may be, are what they are independent of anyone’s conscious activity. That’s the primacy of existence. And yet he’s trying to tell us, one way or another, that the double slit experiment means that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy.<br /><br />Again, the theist simply contradicts himself performatively.<br /><br />Game, set, match. You’re out.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7791533370523312872013-12-04T07:58:10.281-05:002013-12-04T07:58:10.281-05:00Peace be upon on you.
Fyi,
From double slit exper...Peace be upon on you.<br /><br />Fyi,<br />From double slit experiment we got information<br />1/. existence require an observer.<br />2/. if an observer stop observe, the existence will be quickly disappeared.<br /><br />this information is already written 14 centuries ago. in the future all existence will be quickly disappeared “twinkling of the eye”.<br /><br />see link below.<br /><br />http://www.asso-lerappel.fr/index.php/islam-multimedia/ecouter-et-telecharger-le-coran?surano=16&ayatno=77&action=displayAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17008209246919230122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-87044341686167849272011-10-19T08:09:40.754-04:002011-10-19T08:09:40.754-04:00Just correcting whoever asked the question observi...Just correcting whoever asked the question observing doesn't "change" the outcome, it defines it to our reality.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00757151431512011330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91446367777309117572011-02-02T17:42:38.986-05:002011-02-02T17:42:38.986-05:00No beating going on, if anyone is it is probably m...No beating going on, if anyone is it is probably me.<br /><br />To rephrase, you wanted to address that conciousness is separate from the non-concious measuring device and, as such, conciousness is not the implementer of the change upon the electron.<br /><br />You summed it up eloquently with:<br /><br />"<i>Consciousness isn’t even involved at the quantum level, so it’s a non-starter as a counter-example to the primacy of existence.</i>"<br /><br />I only wanted to confirm that the emphasis was not on a purely biological vs mechanically assisted observance, but more that the agent of interference was not conciousness. I also wanted to note that to try and address the overall concern with any accuracy is an exercise in arbitrary opinion. We (including to my knowledge current theoretical physicists) cannot get an observance with out interfering greatly with that observance.Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15202092916383235842011-02-01T19:12:39.697-05:002011-02-01T19:12:39.697-05:00When I read the inquirer’s response, including the...When I read the inquirer’s response, including the statement you quoted, I understood it in the context that “measuring device” was intended to denote an inanimate object (such as one which is capable of monitoring activity at the quantum level) and not human awareness. That’s the difference in play on my reading of the double slit experiment, and the one which I tried to highlight in my response to the inquirer’s question. Whether we want to call this distinction “vital” or not, it is an essential distinction, particularly in the context of the question as to whether the double slit experiment poses negative implications vis. the primacy of existence, since the issue is whether or not merely observing something alters the nature or activity of what’s being observed. If the “measuring device” indicated in the double slit experiment is not even conscious to begin with, this is a deciding factor so far as I can tell. Consciousness isn’t even involved at the quantum level, so it’s a non-starter as a counter-example to the primacy of existence.<br /><br />I think what you’re saying is that, since (on your view) a human eye, or human perception (a type of conscious activity) qualifies as a means of measurement, and therefore can feasibly be subsumed under the rubric “measuring device,” the distinction between a measuring device and an organism is not necessarily one of exclusion, but rather inclusion (having a genus-species relationship), and therefore not vital. Is that what you’re thinking? If so, it’s truth depends on the definition of ‘measuring device’, and this could probably go one of several ways. But again, my assumption was that it was understood that “measuring device” denoted some inanimate object that is not identical to some type of conscious activity.<br /><br />Hope I’m not beating the horse to death here. Just trying to resolve the outstanding question. If I’m way off, let me know.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76352581914273350532011-01-31T18:28:15.651-05:002011-01-31T18:28:15.651-05:00Your argument is perfectly clear and correct, I wa...Your argument is perfectly clear and correct, I wanted to check whether you were in agreeance with the inquirer when he/she said:<br /><br />"<i>I didn't realize how vital the distinction between a measuring device and an observing organism.</i>"<br /><br />Which seems like providing preference to purely biological observance over that assisted by tools.<br /><br />The distinction between measuring device and organism (in this matter at least) is not "vital".<br /><br />The vital emphasis should be on the effect of the measuring device - whether that be eye, phosphor screen or a ruler.Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66304902644761179602011-01-31T01:48:56.528-05:002011-01-31T01:48:56.528-05:00Hello Vagon,
Thank you for your comment.
You wr...Hello Vagon,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment. <br /><br />You wrote: “I am however confused as to the criticism of measuring devices (in this case a screen coated with phosphor) in observation.”<br /><br />The point I was trying to make, and hopefully it was clear enough, is that the “measuring device” used in the experiment (as described in the video I linked to) is illegitimately equated with “observing.” The “device” used to measure the behavior of electrons is not itself conscious, or even a form of consciousness. And yet, the supposition that the double slit experiment’s outcomes pose contradictory implications for the primacy of existence assumes, either wittingly or not, that “observation” (i.e., a conscious activity) is what causes the observed difference in the experiment’s outcome. In fact, contrary to this assumption, some *inanimate* “measuring device” (e.g., “a screen coated with phosphor”) is likely responsible for the difference in outcomes, not mere “observing.”<br /><br />You wrote: “All measurement is effected by observation. An eye itself is a biological measuring device with its own impacts on observation, in particular that it can only register certain wavelengths of light.”<br /><br />The human eye, because of its nature, does in fact limit the distance, scope and scale of our ability to measure what we perceive. It limits what we can perceive to begin with. Indeed, that is why I asked the inquirer if he could tell me who can “observe” activity at the level of an electron. (I’m reminded of the old Disneyland ride called “Inner Space” – do you remember that one, where you sit in a bucket that takes you through the stages of a shrinking process, right down to the size of an atom… Neat stuff!) <br /><br />In the case of the double slit experiment and the argument that its outcome somehow refutes the primacy of existence, the claim seems to be that observing as such somehow alters what is being measured. Before the “measuring device” was implemented, the experiment resulted in an interference pattern; while with the “measuring device” it resulted in a double band, i.e., not an interference pattern. You’ll notice in the video I linked to that it is when the electron was “observed” that its behavior is said to have changed. Of course, this is not something I’ve ever experienced. I can at no point recall something changing (or its effect changing) simply upon my observing it. In fact, they seem to be equivocating “measuring device” with “observing.” And I think that’s what trips up those who are seeking some way to use the double slit experiment to bolster their denial of the primacy of existence.<br /><br />I hope I’m making sense here. If I seem entirely off, or off just a little, please let me know.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39970115280511632422011-01-31T00:25:36.731-05:002011-01-31T00:25:36.731-05:00Well stated on the identity angle, even if an elec...Well stated on the identity angle, even if an electron as a wave is following all possible paths, it is still following its identity.<br /><br />I am however confused as to the criticism of measuring devices (in this case a screen coated with phosphor) in observation. All measurement is effected by observation. An eye itself is a biological measuring device with its own impacts on observation, in particular that it can only register certain wavelengths of light.<br /><br />My own explanation would suggest that observation with an eye is (generally) not subject to any noticeable impact of its own measurement where as zooming down to the quantum level creates greater variances in observation right up to Planck length.<br /><br />We cannot know an electron's path substantial impact from measurement. If someone claims they can let them defend it. Until such time to suggest that this is grounds for the primacy of conciousness is arbitrary.Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.com