Recent findings in Quantum Mechanics

They are not really recent, but they are nevertheless unknown by the huge majority of people.

The double slit experiment has been re-done many times in much more advanced setting, for example the quantul erazer experiment. To summarize recent discoveries in a short paragraph:

Taken together, the existing experiments suggest clear conclusions regarding the predictions we derived.
All predictions have been falsified. The existence of interference patterns depends solely on whether the
“which-path” information is in principle obtainable [11,20,33–35]. Whether such information is registered
in consciousness of a human observer, one can conclude, is irrelevant. Consequently, this conclusion leaves
no other option but to reject the collapse-by-consciousness hypothesis.

From quantum physics and recent discoveries in the field, we can conclude the following:

  1. Form does not have any substance in it. We knew this fact ever since quantum physics was discovered. As Buddha said, form does exist just like perception, volition etc. exist. But form has just as much subtance in it as consciousness or perception: meaning none.

  2. Recent discoveries destroy the solipsist interpretation of quantum physics. For example if you do the measurment but put the information in a small atom without letting a human read it. The wave function still colapses. Only the avaliability of that information is needed to collapse it, not the act of a conscious observer reading it. This also helps explain why the “bigger world” respects laws of classical physics. And it destroys solipsist interpretations about the world behaving like that at the bigger scale due to a lot of conscious beings (insects, etc) collapsing the wave function all around.

The topic I first posted this was involving a discussion about solipsism vs buddhism, about weather of these 2 options is true:

Option 1) There does not exist such a thing as a chair. It’s just an illusion that it exists based on our perception of it and the language we use to describe it. In reality, there is only the language and perception and not the chair itself.

Option 2) There does exist such a thing as a chair. And we, as beings, have the ability to perceive this chair that exists though our sense bases. Not only are we able to perceive it, but we can also describe it to other beings through the use of commonly accepted terms used to describe such a thing, through language. Other beings such as dolphins for example even have the ability to visually transmit this information to one another (though sonar), but we as humans can only use language and not visual systems such as the dolphins. The perception of the chair, the language we use to describe it and the chair itself - all 3 exist not just 2 of them.

While having people arguing for point 1, I have made the following points based on the recent discoveries in quantum mechanics:

There is material form and a bug (let’s say a termite) perceives “a nice meal”.
There is material form and a human perceives “a chair”.
In both cases material form and perception exist (conditionedly arisen and possessing the three characteristics) and so do the other three.
BUT the “chair” and the “nice meal” do not exist since they are only concepts. Time is just the concept of change. Space is just the concept of position in relation to other “things”.

My response:

So you are saying that concepts do not exist ? You are saying that the perception aggregate does not exist ? Does the perceptions described by you appear for the human and the bug ? If they do, it means they exist. If those perceptions would not arise, they would not exist.

You are confusing existence with substance. No, perception does not have any kind of “hard substance” in it. And guess what ? Form does not have any kind of hard substance in it either. This is what both buddhism and science say. You are making the big confusion that only things that have a hard substance in them can exist. But all the 5 aggregates exist, and neither has any substance in them.

As for the quantum refutation of this:

What quantum mechanics tells us is that the chair is still there wheather a conscious observer observes it or not. The simple posibility of a conscious observer observing it at a later point in time makes the wave function already colapse. That’s why at the bigger level, things behave according to classic physics.

Regardless of weather a conscious observer observes it or not, it still exists. If you close your eyes, the chair will not disappear. Only your perception of it will disappear, but not the chair made out of form. If you will ask: how is this possible when the chair has no substance and it requires a collapse of the wave function to really exist. Well, the thing is that you don’t need a conscious observer to collapse the wave function. It is enough that the possibility, the avaliability of that information being out there is enough to collapse it. The fact that you could open your eyes tomorrow and see a chair, this possibility itself collapses the wave function. Not the act itself of opening your eyes.

Maybe the universe is conscious but full of ignorance. :zap:

2 Likes,5&hl=en

The debate us far from over, we have to read the papers which cite that one you posted, so recent papers point out the error of that paper.