Dear Janko,
thank you ver much for your high appreciation of my essays, i am happy that we share the point of view that consciousness is important in physics and cannot be neglected anymore. This is already true for the propositions ones consciousness makes about the physical world. But it is surely also true for the propositions one make about the very nature of consciousness and its role for finding a coherent and consistent explanation of some outstanding physical questions.
That there is a huge intersection between the feature of human logic and the behaviour of nature is - in my opinion - a hint to take consciousness more serious. We should stop thinking of physics as if there is no observer incorporated within it. Erasing the observer from physics to make it as objective as possible leads to the opposite, namely to make it a very subjective thing loaded with many undetected and unproven assumptions.
Janko, you wrote
"Weak measurement means that at the same time we measure particle and wave properties at double slit experiment."
I think this could be only the case if we get some which-path information that is not 100 percent reliable and some weak interference-pattern?
"Maybe someone knows if it is possible to measure electron at two slits at the same time?"
As far as i know, this has not been observed yet - and surely would contradict the predictions of QM.
Janko, the question of free will relating to QM is very interesting and i have wrote about this in some previous essay.
The free-will questions is important, because, on a logical level, this could be a loophole in EPR-like experiments. If measurement results are predetermined (by whatever you think of - for example by some "intitial" conditions at the big bang or by something else), it is predetermined that they mimic just the non-local correlations we observe. But if predetermined, there's no non-local instantaneous influence between two or more entangled "particles", the observed correlations simply have their roots in a mysterious predetermined universe. So, the whole argument to eliminate free will is to avoid a real feature of nature called non-locality. With the argument of pre-determinism you can state that the measurement outcomes are always local and realistic, as Einstein for example wished it to be.
But the whole framework of pre-determined interaction-results is in my opinion a logical contradiction. If pre-determinism is true, it determines my thoughts about nature, my lines of reasoning, my assumptions and my whole worldview. Independent of the truth or even the consistency of the contents of my thoughts. So, if pre-determinism is true, it could be that what i think as some consistent thoughts - and even about the issue of pre-determinism! - appears to me only - mysteriously or randomly due to some initial conditions - as consistent and has *nothing to do with the real physical circumstances*. Surely, this pre-determinism makes no sense at all, because i can never know if my thoughts have some meaningfull connection to the whole framework of pre-determinism.
this all is another reason why i reject the many-worlds interpretation. As you know, in this interpretation it is assumed that the Schroedinger equation is universal, strictly deterministic and does not collapse. This alone, in my opinion, induces pre-determinism and therefore the illusion of non-locality. But without non-locality, there aren't many worlds!
In my own framework the collapse of the wave-function isn't real, because we even don't know what we describe with this wave-function. We simple don't know for sure what propagates between emission and absorbtion and if there propagates something physical at all (this has to be examined further in the light of Zeilingers fullerene-experiments, maybe by monitoring the fullerenes with a heat-imaging camera). So, in my framework, the wave-function does - for practial reasons - fit some evolution of a system, but if there are contradictory facts at the end of such an experiment (for example in delayed-choice-experiments), nothing "collapses", but via entanglement the actual measurement gets rendered consistent with the previous measurement. This alone could explain the "collapse", because the former description via wave-function isn't no more consistent with the actual facts - in other words: It is of no more use to describe or interpret the actual situation.
"It said that speed od information is not larger than c and not infinite. Have you known this?"
Yes, i know the free will theorem. As you know, dependend on dropping and assumption and at the same time incorporating an assumption, you automatically come to new conclusions (assumptions). I think it can not be proven strictly that there's free will - because every proof - by definition - has to be deterministic and you *cannot* prove with deterministic procedures that determinism is false!
Maybe Conway and Kochen didn't make their theorem such deterministic in a mathematical sense, but i think the lines of reasoning are - due to the classical boolean logic - nonetheless deterministic. Only via finding logical contradictions it is possible to falsify the claim of pre-determinism!
"I hope that we will exchange some information also after this contests. Are you work with fundamental physics only in free time?"
We can do this. I also want to exchange information with Frederico Pfrimer and i think it is fruitfull for my own work to more exchange points of view. Yes i work on those topics only in my free time, i am not a professional, but have a regular job.
Thanks again Janko for your appreciation and i hope my statements above could be of some help for you.
Best wishes,
Stefan
