Stop guessing start learning at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 17:49:21 UTC No. 16267851

>>16267829
When you observe something you watch it, so the linguistical context of observe, is to watch.

In physics an observer, watches, and measures. So an observer is looking for changes in something and measures those changes using mathematics.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 19:47:09 UTC No. 16267993

>>16267829
Because your brain is a quantum computer that is quantum entangled with reality. Wave function collapse inside your brain causes wave function collapse in other parts of reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qbyxg95ebw

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:41:17 UTC No. 16268751

Bump

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 12:20:11 UTC No. 16268874

>>16267829
Nothing "knows" it's being observed.
"Observing" means entangling the observer with the observee, through interaction. From that point forward, the observer and the observee won't be factorizable any more, meaning the universe's wave function (which is always a single, continuous function) won't be the (approximate) product of the observer's and the observee's factors any more. All the other results such as the so-called "collapse" derive from that.
I recommend starting from the Decoherence or Many Worlds interpretation and working your way from there.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 12:30:48 UTC No. 16268882

>>16268874
>"Observing" means entangling the observer with the observee, through interaction.
Nope, that would imply the observer himself is in superposition. Clearly nonsense.
>I recommend starting from the Decoherence or Many Worlds interpretation and working your way from there.
Cringe and pop soi pilled

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 12:37:46 UTC No. 16268888

>>16267829
How do you know that something exists? What is the definition of that?
Imagine a possibility of an object ouside of our universe where light and gravity from big bang hasn't travelled yet (and maybe never will).
Can an object exist in such a place under such conditions?

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 14:17:09 UTC No. 16268986

>>16268882
>that would imply the observer himself is in superposition. Clearly nonsense.
Are you not made of the same particles you're trying to observe? Of course you can be in superposition. In fact, Everett / Many Worlds posits just that.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 14:19:34 UTC No. 16268990

>>16268986
My consciousness isn't in superposition and neither is my body. If your consciousness is in superposition you're a schizo and need to take meds