Uncovering a Simulation

And so do I. The moon is not made of perfectly isolated subatomic particles, so it interacts with itself and its environment. You understand how decoherence might be worth considering? To qutoe a recent physicist, Brian Greene:

quote:

---

"Decoherence forces much of the weirdness of quantum physics to 'leak' from large objects since, bit by bit, the quantum weirdness is carried away by the innumerable impinging particles from the environment."

---

But it isn't. But you aren't. Decoherence, decoherence, decoherence.There may be some interesting arguments you could care to bring up against decoherence, but ignoring it doesn't seem to be a good strategy.

There may be some interesting arguments you could care to bring up against decoherence, but ignoring it doesn't seem to be a good strategy. Point me to a paper that says that what you said is a done deal. So why essentially assert that we are observers in your moon example? There are many other potential observers such as the planet earth and, well, everything else that interacts with the subatomic particles in the moon: Including other subatomic particles in the moon.

---

Observing the Progressive Decoherence of the “Meter” in a Quantum Measurement
Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classicalEdited by Modulous, : added some papers about decoherence

Neither of those two articles is a paper which says that the concept that 'we have a distinct role in defining the world around us' is a done deal.

So can you show me a paper which shows that the concept that 'we have a distinct role in defining the world around us' is a fact?

I submit that your wording was inaccurate. 'We' implies 'us humans'. The double slit experiment is not a paper (that is: the standards you expect off your opponents is greater than the standards you hold yourself to: I even gave you two papers on request), and it does not show as a fact that us humans have any particularly interesting role to play at all. You cannot sensibly discuss this topic whilst ignoring decoherence, which you ironically must do if your thesis is to stand at all.I'm not so ignorant of quantum physics that I am unaware of the measurement problem, but you place significant weight in your own understanding of quantum physics. You sound like me when I was 14 and I had just read about this stuff for the first time. It might be an idea to keep an open mind about it at the moment, ask questions from the experts and avoid throwing your weight behind things so much. Did you read the next paragraph? Where it says 'there exist two unnoticed deadly flaws in the demonstration.'?There are basically two types of reactions when confronted with quantum mechanics:1. Holy Crap, then that means there is no objective reality, consciousness is key, time travel is possible, we are gods in our own minds, blink and its all gone!2. Wow, that's crazy. What does that mean? What do you mean we don't know? Are you telling me that this is just the way it is? Hmm, oh well - why did I expect to understand what the underlying nature of the cosmos actually means?Some people start at 1, and move to 2. I don't think there are many people doing 2=>1 though.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.