I like this one fella

No, that's exactly the point of the quote. If you unplug it nothing changes, as long as it is interacting somehow with the observed particles, and those changes are causally propagating towards the rest of the universe. Sure, if you are measuring electrons by shooting photons at them and then unplug the device such that it stops shooting photons, then the behavior of the particle under observation changes because it's no longer INTERACTING with the observed particles. If you unplug the detector from the computer/display but it still is connected to the power source and shooting photons, the behavior of the particles under observation will not change. As I mentioned, there is an exception. If you set up the experiment such that the results of the wave function couldn't be known EVEN IN PRINCIPLE (that is, you stop the causal chain resulting from the interaction from propagating to the rest of the universe) then it doesn't collapse the wave function.

That is what "observation" means. Interaction and causal propagation of the consequence of the wave function collapse towards the rest of the universe.

It does NOT matter if there is a human looking at the results. It does NOT matter if the sensor was set up by humans or just got there naturally. In fact, it does not matter if it is a sensor at all, only that it comes close enough to be affected by the "observed" particle's electromagnetically forces. It makes the wave function collapse just the same.

There are probably more than trillions of wave function collapses happening every second in every cubic inch since the beginning of the universe, observed or not, and happened before and will continue happening after the demise of humanity. Wave function collapse is how matter interacts. The only difference between natural WFC and man-made WFC is that without human intervention via whatever ways, the particle would've traveled a little bit more before reaching natural, non man-made matter and collapsing anyways.

The wiki and physicists emphasize the "SENSOR" aspect because it is really problematic for practical purposes (and interesting for philosophical purposes as well) that you just CAN NOT measure subatomic particles beyond a certain amount of precision, because the act of measurement itself is an instance of interaction between the sensor's particles and the particles you actually want to measure, which collapses the wave function of the particles you want to measure. A rock would do just the same, but because rocks can't be used to make measurements, it doesn't matter and isn't emphasized as much in the media.Dude... human intent has no relationship to this at all. It's in your own fukn quote:

there is little doubt we're in a simulation

"Holography is the science and practice of making holograms. Typically, a hologram is a photographic recording of a light field, rather than of an image formed by a lens, and it is used to display a fully three-dimensional image of the holographed subject, which is seen without the aid of special glasses or other intermediate optics. The hologram itself is not an image and is usually unintelligible when viewed under diffuse ******t light. It is an encoding of the light field as an interference pattern of seemingly random variations in the opacity, density, or surface profile of the photographic medium. When suitably lit, the interference pattern diffracts the light into a reproduction of the original light field and the objects that were in it appear to still be there, exhibiting visual depth cues such as parallax and perspective that change realistically with any change in the relative position of the observer."

---->holographic = pertaining to holography = literally nothing to do with quantum physics

Edit: there seems to be a real physics theory with the name "holographic principle" but it seems to have more to do with string theory than traditional quantum mechanics, and doesn't seem to be related to wave function collapse or the slit experiment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle)


sol·id
ˈsäləd/Submit
adjective
1.
firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid.
"the stream was frozen solid"
synonyms: hard, rock-hard, rigid, firm, solidified, set, frozen, concrete
"the ice cream was solid"
2.
not hollow or containing spaces or gaps.

----->Matter actually is composed of particles whose field extends (theoretically) to the whole universe, so it could be argued that even space that we perceive as empty is occupied by every atom in existence at the same time. But I concede your point of things not actually being "solid", it's all probabilistic particles with limitless electromagnetic fields around them.


>many worlds interpretation

------> Maybe, but that's not the only interpretation. But even then, consciousness doesn't affect this random process in any way, shape or form. Our consciousnesses are a by-product of the activity of our brains, which are actually governed by the results of these random wave function collapses. Not the other way around.

Apparently the amount of physics problems that the holographic theory solves is too great to ignore. And I don't think we'll ever know what's actually behind it, because by simply observing we change what it is we're looking at. Almost as though it's a failsafe to keep us from find out the truth lol.I'm just gonna stop reading here since you are clearly irate and seem to think I was talking about unplugging the photon gun, rather than the sensor.I fail to see how that has any relevance to this particular discussion.

Holograms and implicate order
See also: Holographic principle and Holographic paradigm

In a holographic reconstruction, each region of a photographic plate contains the whole image
Bohm employed the hologram as a means of characterising implicate order, noting that each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohm’s words:

There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".[11]

Bohm noted that although the hologram conveys undivided wholeness, it is nevertheless static.

In this view of order, laws represent invariant relationships between explicate entities and structures, and thus Bohm maintained that in physics, the explicate order generally reveals itself within well-constructed experimental contexts as, for example, in the sensibly observable results of instruments. With respect to implicate order, however, Bohm asked us to consider the possibility instead "that physical law should refer primarily to an order of undivided wholeness of the content of description similar to that indicated by the hologram rather than to an order of analysis of such content into separate parts ...".[12]

..in other words, you've got the entire universe in your thumbnail.

You stopped reading cause you know you're spewing bullchit. If you continued reading you would've seen that I covered both possibilities.

No I stopped reading because you're being hysterical.

Here's another analogy:

If you have a holographic image of a penis imprinted on a piece of film (which later has a laser shone through it to project the 3d image of the penis) and then you cut that piece of film into 8 pieces, all 8 pieces of the film has the entire picture of the penis on it.

In other words, the whole of the image is somehow stored within the surface of the entire image in every location.

It's this principal behind the holographic model of the universe. The 'projected penis' is the "explicate", whilst the piece of film that stores the image is the "implicate".

yeah I guess caring too much about physics and crackpots is betaish

Do all British postmen play Minecraft in their spare time? Did you build a railway system for delivering letters and a highly efficient post office in your game?

Prove me wrong on the above points

I can confirm.

From all of us Christians :

we told you so.

Now get right with your Creator before it's too late.

where you're headed, I can promise you God won't be there

You're absolutely correct on both counts. Well done.

Where's Lucianus to confirm the holographic penis model????

Probably projecting his gaping arsehole from the surface of reality.

lmaooo

wait how do we know it’s “giant”? what if we’re just really really small so it just seems giant to us?

This is a good point.

It's both, yet neither, at the same time.

The holographic principal means the entire cosmos is contained in an electron (somewhere probably beyond our observational capabilities) and within an electron within that cosmos too.

And so on, and so on.

Boyo, you are officially a puzzie now

For anyone that is confused, they're basically saying "physical matter" isn't actually real, because everything including an atom is made out of "energy", thus it is only our consciousness that perceives matter, when really everything is a mold of energy.

The universe is actually "real", but how we perceive it is only a simulation, because everything is nothing more than energy when we don't perceive it from our own senses and consciousness.

It's just more science hoo-ha to explain how we're in a simulation.

..and you'll die alone on a piss-soaked mattress with your starving dog eating your face.

It's all swings and roundabouts brah.

inb4 op thinks we observe electrons with a microscope.

Strong failure to grasp the point.

Guys...the entire wave/particle debate is obsolete and has been for about 60 years now. People talk about fields or strings. And there is a duality between them. Regarding the quantum measurement problem, this is pretty much open to interpretation. Some say newer research in quantum decoherence resolves this problem. The least controversial picture to have in your head right now is that there are no "particles" or "waves" per se...there are "quantum fields". There is an "electron field" defined all over the universe. There is no way to tell "a particular electron" apart from any other "electron". What we detect as particles or waves are manifestations of these quantum fields.

BTW OP's cliffs are basically, to a first approximation, true and valid.

Most of the objects we think of as solid are not. The solidness is coming from electromagnetic interactions with the system. Measurement (interaction/detection) appears to localize or "collapse" wavefunctions. That means not detecting the "particle" will lead to it retaining its wavelike behavior, and it will diffract like any classical wave. By solid objects don't exist, OP means mass is not a continuum, filling the volume of space that we might think. Much of the atom is empty space, and the mass is concentrated sharply somewhere when detected. What we perceive as solid is simply the electromagnetic force pushing against us. Some more bizarre results from modern (now ancient and about 100 years old) physics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...f_simultaneity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdi...utnam_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E...gy_equivalence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

some more interestings aspects from more recent or current research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

plants receive sunlight and grow, do you deny that statement if no one is watching them?