0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Stephen Fowler (LosPolloFowler) · 2025-04-07T07:53:49.715Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Unfortunately, pop-science descriptions of the double slit experiment are fairly misleading. That observation changes the outcome in the double-slit experiment can be explained without the need to model the universe as exhibiting "mild awareness". Or, your criteria for what constitutes "awareness" is so low that you would apply it to any dynamical system in which 2 or more objects interact.
The less-incorrect explanation is that observation in the double slit experiment fundamentally entangles the observing system with the observed particle because information is exchanged.
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=919863
Replies from: 314159↑ comment by amelia (314159) · 2025-04-07T13:14:36.307Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for the feedback. I just need a little clarification though.
You say "The less-incorrect explanation is that observation in the double slit experiment fundamentally entangles the observing system with the observed particle because information is exchanged."
So in the analogy, the observing system would be the iPhone? And Hugo/the universe wouldn't need to be observing the observer, and differentiating between when it's being observed and not being observed, in order to cause the information to become entangled in the first place? Is that right?
I'll check out the article. Thanks!
comment by Raphael Roche (raphael-roche) · 2025-04-07T13:26:08.378Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The it from bit (or qbit) hypothesis is fascinating, so is the information paradox, so is quantum mechanics, but I don't think there is any empirical nor theoretical evidence supporting "awareness" - what may it be - of the universe in any of this. No more than evidence supporting god(s) or a flying spaghetti monster. Creating a narrative does not constitute evidence (edit : even if gedankenexperiments are valuable). We are free to speculate, and it is very respectable, however an extraordinary affirmation needs an equally extraordinary amount of proof and I think we are really far from it. We are actually struggling to understand if, how and why humans have consciousness, not speaking of animals and LLMs. Let's solve these cases before we speak of the awareness of rocks or the whole universe.
Replies from: TAG, 314159↑ comment by TAG · 2025-04-07T14:36:07.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Some people.think that an information ontology must be some sort of idealist ontology because they think of information as a mental thing. But you can ponens/tolens that: inasmuch as physics can deal with information, it's not something that exists in only minds.
↑ comment by amelia (314159) · 2025-04-08T05:10:37.865Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Replies from: raphael-roche↑ comment by Raphael Roche (raphael-roche) · 2025-04-08T08:21:52.996Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think what gives you this idea in the double slit experiment is that depending on how you observe or measure the object, it seems to exhibit different behavior. How is this possible? Isn't it mysterious? To resolve this mystery, you appeal to an explanation like awareness. But although it feels like an explanation, it actually explains nothing. Putting a word on something is reassuring, but behind the word we're not sure what we're talking about - we don't know how it's supposed to function; there is no actual explanation. It purports to explain everything, thus explains nothing. You don't know how it works and can't make any predictions. It's just as mysterious as the initial mystery itself (just like explanations implying gods or other supernatural causes).
Sometimes mystery must remain. But in this case, that needn't be so. The initial mystery may not be such a mystery after all. An observation or measurement implies an interaction with the measured/observed object. The double slit experiment involves a protocol that interacts with the observed object and constrains its behavior, thus producing different outputs when you slightly change the protocol and the interaction. The same applies to all measurement/observation - it is never absolutely neutral. So if the rock behaves slightly differently when you're around observing it, this is fundamentally no different from the reason why the rock moves if you push it. It doesn't imply that the rock is aware of anything, unless by "awareness" you simply mean "physical interaction."
comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2025-04-07T08:52:21.425Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
From an inconsistency, everything follows.
The story tells us that on the one hand, Hugo shows no sign of higher brain function. Then on the other hand, it introduces an exception to that. So does Hugo have higher brain function?
Hugo does not exist. There are no observations to be made on him that might shed light. Everything in this story was made up by the author. There is no answer to the question. You might as well say "suppose I had a square circle! suppose 2+2 was 3! suppose I could flap my arms and fly to the Moon!"
Unsurprisingly, the LLM (from what you have said of its answer) fails to notice this.
Feel free to tell it that and see what it says. I expect it to just add my commentary to the sludge and vomit it back out again.
Replies from: 314159↑ comment by amelia (314159) · 2025-04-07T14:48:23.774Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2025-04-07T14:59:49.450Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is exactly the standard of answer I predicted. It stirs my analysis of the story into its previous interpretation without the two interacting. Its comment that "I didn’t ignore that tension—I leaned into it" is an exercise in irregular verbs, or would be, if there was a mind behind it.