Do you think its possible we are living in a holographic universe?

[Hotdog]

There is an argument to be made that given the molecular structure of an individual brain, and the differences from other brains, and the differences in environment and situation that each brain is placed in, that every choice is determinable if you could perfectly understand all variables associated with thought, both biological and environmental. In other words, I think you could make an argument that free will really does not exist and is merely the output of a very very complex program running on hyper-complex computational equipment, and if you could understand all those variables you could within a very tight tolerance predict future decisions that an individual would make.

Ive read about a few studies, and seen a couple on video of evidence that suggests that our brains know whats coming before it materializes. Such as, a test where lights were used and the subject just had to signal with the push of a button which light lit up. The tests showed that the brain would signal its choice before the picture was even shown. Its been a while since I have read about it so the details my be a little off.

Not sure how credible the tests were, but never the less, someone was claiming. So It would lend support to what you are saying.

 

[Hotdog]

Hey Siro and Colton, what do you guys think about the quantum eraser experiment, and what does it say about the observer role?

You both seem to know a lot about this. Curious what you think about it.

 

[colton]

Or do you believe that free choice is immaterial and mystical?

I guess I don't see free will as explainable through the laws of physics, so I guess in that sense you could call it mystical. I don't believe that however well you could accurately describe a person's brain's state, that you could predict his or her choices through probabilistic methods only.

Free will actually works better in the multiverse. Every time you make a choice, other versions make the same or different choices. You choose to go with strawberry ice-cream, other versions of you go with chocolate, others pick strawberry as well, and some decide they don't need the calories. The choices don't have to occur with equal probability, which means a sort of selection will go on. Those who make the better choice will reap the rewards of such choice, and those who don't won't. Each good choice will put you in a better position to make another good choice in the future, increasing the stacks of you that made good choices. Taking an individual and looking at all the choices that unfolded throughout their lives, there will be timelines where the individual did well and lived a rich and productive life, and others where the choices had a negative effect on his well-being. So you can look at the "good" timeline and define those choice as the right ones! And since wavefunction decoherence in MWI is not random, we have a good objective definition of free will, which is something interpretation-free QM can't accomplish.

If other versions of you exist that made other choices, then there is no free will. There is only the coincidence of being in the universe where that particular choice was made. I see this as being similar to the anthropic principle, if that helps. A type of observational bias.

If I read what you are saying correctly, you're talking about continued good choices leading towards a greater likelihood of good choices in the future. But I don't see how that's possible because there will be just as many universes (in some sense) where you made bad choices as there are where you made good choices. So why wouldn't your same argument work in reverse?

 

[colton]

Hey Siro and Colton, what do you guys think about the quantum eraser experiment, and what does it say about the observer role?

You both seem to know a lot about this. Curious what you think about it.

That wasn't a phrase I was familiar with, so I googled it to find this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

I've heard of that before, but not in enough detail to know whether the Wikipedia article is accurate. Reading that article myself just now, it seems rather like quantum teleportation, where the measurement of one part of an entangled pair causes the wavefunction to collapse and the state of the other part to become definite. To really understand it, though, I'd have to read the Physical Review A paper that has the technical details (external link at the bottom of the Wikipedia article). I don't have time to do that in detail right now, but the funny thing is that a quick glance over the paper makes it seem like I actually have all of the equipment needed to do the experiment in my lab. Would take a while to set it up, though.

But what's your specific question about it? Do I believe it? Do I think it's cool? Do I think it says anything about humanity? Or what?

 

[LogGrad98]

Obviously I am a total layman when it comes to this stuff, but I always wondered in the double slit experiment how do they know that the photons don't just bounce off the edges of the slits as opposed to acting as a wave?

 

[One Brow]

Obviously I am a total layman when it comes to this stuff, but I always wondered in the double slit experiment how do they know that the photons don't just bounce off the edges of the slits as opposed to acting as a wave?

Because the photons set up interference patterns, as opposed to having a an appearance of a spray.

 

[colton]

Because the photons set up interference patterns, as opposed to having a an appearance of a spray.

And even more specifically, because the interference patterns that get set up (aka diffraction patterns) are exactly as predicted by wave physics, and are just like the patterns produced by other waves. See example the pictures of water waves at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_tank

Here's the last photo from that article:

That's just the same as the pattern you get when light passes through two nearby slits. Think of the light as traveling from top to bottom, and the middles of the two sets of circles would be the positions of the slits. You could put a light detector anywhere in the bottom two thirds of the region (i.e. past the slits), and detect the same alternating patches of light and dark that show up in these water waves. The scale would just be smaller, of course.

 

[colton]

Coincidentally, I just did a demonstration of that type of interference in my class yesterday, using sound waves coming from two speakers.

Here's a video of the demo (recorded a few years ago):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4skBirEdBk

It's not the greatest video, but you can kind of hear how the audio volume goes up and down as the camera moves around. (It's easier to hear in person.) That's from the camera hitting loud and soft areas in the room as it moves side to side, not from any change in the audio source.

I also created this animation to represent what was going on. The two speakers are the sources of the waves, the two things going up and down next to each other at the top.

You can see that for a given row in the classroom, if you move your head back and forth to the left and right you will hit regions of loud (big amplitude waves) and soft (small amplitude waves). Same thing happens with light, except "loud" = "bright" and "soft" = "dark".

Probably more info than you wanted...

 

[LogGrad98]

No that was perfect. Thanks.

Is it possible to post a picture of the output of the actual experiment, and not just a representative diagram?

 

[Siro]

I guess I don't see free will as explainable through the laws of physics, so I guess in that sense you could call it mystical. I don't believe that however well you could accurately describe a person's brain's state, that you could predict his or her choices through probabilistic methods only.



If other versions of you exist that made other choices, then there is no free will. There is only the coincidence of being in the universe where that particular choice was made. I see this as being similar to the anthropic principle, if that helps. A type of observational bias.

If I read what you are saying correctly, you're talking about continued good choices leading towards a greater likelihood of good choices in the future. But I don't see how that's possible because there will be just as many universes (in some sense) where you made bad choices as there are where you made good choices. So why wouldn't your same argument work in reverse?

Well yes, the reverse is also true. Bad choices increase the likelihood of other bad choices. So each choice you make has very real consequences not just for yourself, but for your meta-self. I see it as an expanded definition of choice.

But you're right, it is very different than the typical idea of free choice. That's not surprising since it is a very different way to view reality. I've always been fascinated about my "true" existence across the mutliverse (assuming there is such a thing). My existence in SLC is just a data point on my position probability distribution. So the true Siro exists across the entire planet with different concentrations in different places, creating a sort of planet-encompassing Psi-squared net of Siros. How strange it would be to have access to such information.

 

[Siro]

Hey Siro and Colton, what do you guys think about the quantum eraser experiment, and what does it say about the observer role?

You both seem to know a lot about this. Curious what you think about it.

I looked it up and it seem like one of those delayed choice experiments that try to examine causality by having an effect happen before its cause. I'd have to read the paper to give any opinions, and that's a bit time consuming. But there are plenty of of experiments that use entanglement and teleportation to achieve mind-blowing results. There is still so much to learn.

 

[colton]

No that was perfect. Thanks.

Is it possible to post a picture of the output of the actual experiment, and not just a representative diagram?

You got it! I just remembered I had a video of the double slit experiment from a previous semester.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_Jsl0FxYU

We're shining a laser through two side-by-side narrow slits positioned at the back of the room, towards the white board at the front of the room. The red laser is kind of hard to see in the video, but the green laser at the very end is much easier.

 

[colton]

Well yes, the reverse is also true. Bad choices increase the likelihood of other bad choices. So each choice you make has very real consequences not just for yourself, but for your meta-self. I see it as an expanded definition of choice.

I'm still not getting it. In your view, don't bad choices and good choices happen with equal likelihood? (And if not, why not?) So one meta-self is getting more and more good, but another meta-self is getting more and more bad?

 

[LogGrad98]

You got it! I just remembered I had a video of the double slit experiment from a previous semester.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_Jsl0FxYU

We're shining a laser through two side-by-side narrow slits positioned at the back of the room, towards the white board at the front of the room. The red laser is kind of hard to see in the video, but the green laser at the very end is much easier.

Thanks. The green laser was really cool. Was it just a laser pointer type thing? Could I do this at home?

 

[One Brow]

Siro/colton,

Both of you seem to be assuming in your discussion that human decision making would be a type of even that triggers a split into alternate universes in a many-worlds scenario. I don't pretend to understand the details, but it that accurate? What about human decision-making would trigger such a split?

 

[Siro]

I'm still not getting it. In your view, don't bad choices and good choices happen with equal likelihood? (And if not, why not?) So one meta-self is getting more and more good, but another meta-self is getting more and more bad?

Why would both outcomes have equal likelihood? Remember that an individual retains information from past events, and uses that information to make the choice. The end result is analogous to biological evolution. Say one version of you makes the choice to drink and drive and ends up in an accident, while another decides against it and ends up alright. Both decisions will have been made in countless universes, but in equal probability because the decision is based on your brain and the experiences in accumulated. Then after the choice is made, those who made the right choice will 1. Live long enough to make other choices, 2. Gain new information about the wisdom of not driving drunk, which will be used in making future choices.

 

[colton]

Thanks. The green laser was really cool. Was it just a laser pointer type thing? Could I do this at home?

Yes, it was just a laser pointer.

You can do it from home if you can somehow rig up two narrow slits next to each other. They would need to each be a fraction of a millimeter wide (the narrower the better), and separated by a distance just less than the width of the laser beam.

What would be much easier is to see diffraction from a single slit at home. That also sets up a cool pattern. You could do that just by setting up two razor blades next to each other, separated by some distance that's a bit less than the width of your laser beam. And, even easier, you can also get the same effect by having a narrow object obstructing the beam--I typically use a hair.*

See these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2TtJLDiqMA

(next video in next post due to site limitations)


* Come to think of it, you should be able to get the double slit pattern by using two hairs held closely side by side. That would probably be much easier than two slits.

 

[colton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk2Tl9AW9R8

 

[colton]

Why would both outcomes have equal likelihood? Remember that an individual retains information from past events, and uses that information to make the choice. The end result is analogous to biological evolution. Say one version of you makes the choice to drink and drive and ends up in an accident, while another decides against it and ends up alright. Both decisions will have been made in countless universes, but in equal probability because the decision is based on your brain and the experiences in accumulated. Then after the choice is made, those who made the right choice will 1. Live long enough to make other choices, 2. Gain new information about the wisdom of not driving drunk, which will be used in making future choices.

I'm not saying both outcomes are equally likely in OUR universe, I'm saying both outcomes are equally likely across ALL universes. Or if not exactly equally likely, at least somewhat close to equally likely. Because in an alternate universe there's a Colton who went astray early on, right, and has been making bad choices ever since. So THAT colton would be about as likely to drive drunk as THIS colton is unlikely to do so.

Edit: Getting back to the legal question, then--so why would you punish THAT colton for merely having the misfortune to live in a universe where his likelihood of driving drunk was greatly enhanced? It's not HIS fault he lived in that universe rather than this one. That's what I'm getting at with this view being at odds with free will.

 

[Siro]

Siro/colton,

Both of you seem to be assuming in your discussion that human decision making would be a type of even that triggers a split into alternate universes in a many-worlds scenario. I don't pretend to understand the details, but it that accurate? What about human decision-making would trigger such a split?

If two separate paths exist for the atoms doing the calculations in the brain, then both paths will be taken. So yes, choice would trigger such a split in my understanding.