wow... seems like we keep going in circles on this. I'll jump in again.
"biological robots in a meaningless universe" is falsified by the double slit experiment... and made even more explicit by dean radin's experiments. "biological robots in a meaningless universe" posits/depends-on mind=brain. the emerging property bullshit is smoke and mirrors... it's still mind=brain.
Max planck and the rest of those guys realized the implications of these experiments 100 years ago when they concluded that consciousness is fundamental.
Again, we have to give radin credit for making this more explicit in his experiments where he has a meditator directly affect the photon beam.
Alex, none of that answers my questions, and the double slit experiment doesn't do what purveyors of quantum woo in general claim. This is obvious to anyone who actually understands how the original double slit experiment is done. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment is the one that has the most relevance ( see below ).
For the more advanced experiments, statistical significance doesn't prove causation ( to me anyway ). But to take it even further, even if the universe is wired in a way that allows consciousness to have some effect, it still doesn't add any significance to the "biological robots in a meaningless universe" statement.
The best that the "biological robots in a meaningless universe" statement can claim is to be a description for a particular nihilistic attitude that some people may have about what their own experience in the world adds-up to. But strictly speaking, the phrase "biological robot" doesn't have to be seen as a pejorative. Nor does the phrase "meaningless universe". It may be the case that from a particular perspective, the
workings of the universe don't have any meaning in and of themselves, but are assigned meaning by entities within that construct that are capable of doing so, including biological robots.
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
The Hypothesis That Consciousness Is A Causal Factor Is Premature
It has been hypothesized that the results of The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment are a result of the experimenter's knowledge about how the experiment works. If that is the case, then the results should be different when the experiment is run by somebody who doesn't understand it, let's say someone who is completely unfamiliar with these sorts of experiments or QM in general.
On this question, I would wager a cup of coffee that the results will be the same whether or not the person who runs the experiment has "knowledge" about what is going on, in which case the hypothesis that the experimenter's knowledge about the experiment changes the results, cannot be correct. I'm not entirely sure how one would setup the experiment to test this, because I don't know if the experimenter actually views the patterns as described in the video below in order to determine the results.
However, if the experimenter must actually view the patterns as described in the video in order to get the results, then hypothetically, some other really interesting experiments could be done. For example, if the hypothesis is true that the knowledge the experimenter has about the experiment causes a specific type of pattern, then a pattern from the same experiment run by someone who has no idea what is going on, should suddenly change when viewed by someone who does understand the experiment. Does that happen?
This also brings up some interesting questions about what we mean by "knowledge" vs "consciousness" vs "intelligence". If it were the case that the system is in fact reacting to consciousness ( as is claimed by some ), then the system is a consciousness detector. This has some major philosophical ramifications, e.g. we could now tell if an AI, that in all other respects appears and behaves human, has consciousness, or is simply a clockwork orange.
A Review of The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
