Thank you that clarifies the situation, thanks, it is always fun on your posts. Though I think you are being a little hard on Anglophile, since I think that most of his motivation was in good humour and well intended, sometimes you get carried away in the excitment of debate.

@Fernapple I'm defensive because I've been attacked all my life for not agreeing with how everyone else thinks and does things. I don't like bullies.

@JeffMesser Fair enough.

and when does such a change occur?

@JeffMesser Only when observed. Strange facts.....

The eye is a detector of photons. The photons that are causing the change of the wave-function can also cause a change on the retina of the eye. The eye cannot see without photons.

@PondartIncbendog when observed. ok. so those events that we see light from across the universe don't happen until someone observes them? does that mean there's proof of life elsewhere?? or is there something about the act of observing independent of a human body?

There is no need to observe the photon that caused the change of the wave-function but if the wave-function does not get hit by a photon then the wave-function does not change and you cannot make an observation without the photon. It does not play a role if life exist somewhere else. But it would be unlikely if there is no life elsewhere in the universe.

@JeffMesser I'm a dog. D.O.G. I don't know. I'm just trying to type without thumbs!

@PondartIncbendog well if it takes an observation to make things happen and things are happening on the other side of the universe then there's observing going on there. hence ... ergo .... something, someone is observing things there OR observing doesn't have anything to do with a physical body or perceptions. something else sets that probability off. what is it?

and that puts you right in league with at least of these people who want to pretend they are theoretical physicists. much better to admit than just argue to argue.

Congratulations!!! This is the most rational conclusion. To suppose that Schrodinger was both literal and correct in his cat analogy is both something that he did not intend IMHO and it is also climbing on an unsupported speculative bandwagon with no useful outcome.

Richard Feynman once said, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." I think he was being very perceptive.

Especially when the small slit is inside the big slit...

time doesnt exist. not sure what's so remarkable about that. it and space are both constructs.

Definitions are important, so one could argue either way, depending on how time is defined. Getting to carried away with the definition, one could say nothing exists.

@maturin1919 no. they dont.

@maturin1919 ok. if you just say something then it must be true. I'm convinced. Now explain how time is a constant no matter what the velocity of the observer or stop typing.

Definitions DO matter. It is very easy to prove. Ask five people what the definition of time is, and you will get a different definition every time.

so the laws of physics just don't do it for you huh? I see.

@JeffMesser No what he is saying is that you have misunderstood the laws of physics.

@Fernapple really? and what did I misunderstand?

@JeffMesser Laws! Schmaws! Laws in science are just mathematical descriptions, and are very poor models. I am rather partial to theories.

(Note to self: compare what is taught in schools in this arena these days compared to 60 years ago.)

@Fernapple Um, when and how did I say that (the laws of physics refers)? (Okay, I will admit that I am infamous for being terse, and so it is hardly surprising that I often fail to make myself understandable to others.)

@anglophone the entirety of existence can be explained by math. there's no such thing as magic or mysticism. there's science. rules of interaction. if I put 2 of x with 2 more of x then I have 4 total of x. there are universal laws. they allow predictability.

@JeffMesser The limits of their application.

@JeffMesser, @anglophone Sorry not with you this time, please enlarge.

@Fernapple the limits of their application? "universal" is pretty self-explanatory.

@JeffMesser At the risk of me being a pedant, of which universal laws do you speak?

@anglophone conservation of matter? energy balance equations? everything we used in nuclear physics during my tenure as a nuclear engineer. those.

@JeffMesser The claim that there are "universal laws" is a very large claim indeed. Would you care to enlarge on that claim?

@JeffMesser Since when was matter conserved? Hint: one of the most successful theories to date shows that matter and energy are interchangeable.

@anglophone I am very aware of conservation of mass. how do you think we developed the 9 factor formula among others in physics for Keff to take nuclear material critical?

@JeffMesser So e=mc^2 is irrelevant? The atomic bomb is a fiction?

@JeffMesser If the, "entire universe is already contained within awareness" as you say. Then how would you know that the laws of physics apply at all to that which contains the universe, since the laws of physics only apply to the observable universe.

@anglophone here, if you need a little background try this for starters
[en.wikipedia.org]

@Fernapple how do you think we measure things in other galaxies? we take measurements of red-shift variances to get evidence of somethings' existence because of our understanding of the laws of nature. it's universal. but that means the awareness must also be universal. not limited to where humans exist.

matter doesnt make awareness .... awareness makes matter.

@Fernapple, @anglophone in a static system that rule works. in a dynamic one, not so much. how is the speed of light a constant no matter what the velocity of the observer? as the observer nears the speed of light he should catch up with light. but he never does. why? because to awareness light is instantaneous. but when we have to drag it across physical space to meet our bodies then it takes time and distance. space and time are mental constructs.

@JeffMesser You presume that I am ignorant of such things? WOOHOO! Ping @Fernapple

@JeffMesser "matter doesnt make awareness .... awareness makes matter" ROFLMFAO!

@JeffMesser YOU are a mental construct of your own devising! Thanks for the laughter. Ping @Fernapple

@Fernapple I must admit to being amused by the way that @JeffMesser keeps sidestepping the issues that you and I both put to him.

@anglophone what issue did you put in front of me? the next time I am doing a long form pre-crit I will make sure to tell those neutrons that you don't believe they will follow the rules and maintain Keff at a predicted rate. Heaven forbid we wish to follow IAEA and NRC regs about estimating rod positions prior to criticality. Don't pretend to lecture me about physics.

@JeffMesser And don't you pretend to lecture me about models of the natural world! Ping @Fernapple

@JeffMesser So how do you measure awareness ?

@Fernapple how do you measure things with no objective qualities to deflect meters at a given moment in time? hmmmm ....

@JeffMesser How do you measure the ability to deflect relevant questions with irrelevant diversionary responses? Ping @Fernapple

@anglophone I have yet to see a suggestion as to whose view of epistemology you'd wish to accept. why don't you spend less time being an asshole and more time actually trying to intellect something?

@JeffMesser So are you saying that physics does not have a meter to measure awareness?

@Fernapple does awareness cause a meter deflection?

@JeffMesser I see that you have failed to notice that I am an asshole towards everybody who refuses to use what passes for their brain. Ping @Fernapple

@JeffMesser WOOHOO! You presume that @Fernapple is ignorant of fMRI? That is extraordinarily brave of you!

@JeffMesser I don't know, you have the list of your meters.

@anglophone Sorry yes that should have been universal awareness. I just want to get a yes or no answer out of jeffmesser which I know is a big ask. But you will see why in a min.

@Fernapple if one of you has a point to make then I';d suggest making it because so far you've said nothing.

@JeffMesser I find your assertion that @Fernapple has so far said nothing to be magnificently hilarious. I thank you for this my evening's entertainment, and I look forward to catching up with both of you tomorrow after I have paid due homage to Somnos. G'Night.

@anglophone Good night sleep well.

@anglophone, @JeffMesser I do not have my answer yet. So I am not ready to go on.

@anglophone Could one of you guys show me how to use a tape measure?

@PondartIncbendog I would if I knew how to use one myself.

@JeffMesser OK that's fine. So if you won't answer my question fine. Can we at least recap, by saying that your original, point was that Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, and then the double slit experiment, provide evidence that there is a field of awareness ?

@Fernapple Suggestion: don't hold your breath while waiting for a response from @JeffMesser.

@anglophone I am fine to speak with fern but anglo you're just getting das boot. I'm too old to deal with 20-something bullshit. grow up.