I see where I'm going wrong here. The structure I'm thinking of is not a Venn diagram. If it was the set of experienced objects and the set of material objects would not intersect. Unless we specify members of the set of material objects or experienced images of objects sharing a name with members of the other set (than its own.)In which case the two sets overlap. Showing an issue for clear thinking.

The structure with higher dimensional space inside lower dimensional space is more like a map, showing a relation between a 4 dimensional virtual space-time to (assumed to be) 3 dimensional or no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned) space...shown in 2 dimensions.

I think" no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned)' could be important for understanding some quantum superpositions. Where the found state depends upon imposing an observer's relative perspective.

Thank you Georgina. Maybe this will work, maybe not:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355169846_Gravity_as_a_4

"No connection to science at all" Tom-? Statistics was a compulsory part of my biological sciences degree, I also took 1 lecture of binomial genetics to decide it wasn't my cup of tea, and wouldn't sit the full class but swap for another.

I don't understand, Georgina. Are you suggesting statistics as the guiding principle of science?

No, but the statistics that will be used to analyze the results can be part of the experimental design process. Replication of outcomes with statistical significance is better evidence for something being a true effect than just a result or unanalyzed number of results. I think this especially used in some areas of science eg. pharmacology. That was not my point though. It was just that maths is a part of sciences apart from physics.

This structure can be likened to a simulated game 'world' of a computer or games console and monitor, generated in response to a players controlling actions. The complete simulated world does not exist (as decoded product) inside the computer/games console and monitor but it is generated partly and is a semblance of a material reality. --------------------The observation product of a person is partial semblance of the external environment. Rather than providing inputs to a games controller or key board -inputs to the brain are provided by the senses. The experienced Image reality is not 'ground floor' reality. The sources of the inputs and the inputs themselves are plausibly 'ground floor'. Except when the sources of inputs are technology or its product such as; TV, cinema film, photograph, computer game, telephone screen image. Consciousness is fundamental to us as functional humans but not fundamental to existence.

A singular consciousness has a point of view, it is informed by its unique sensory inputs. Now try to imagine an asymmetric, variously patterned object seen from all positions surrounding it at once. Or imagine the superimposed images of 100 cameras surrounding it. It will likely just seem a source of 'noise'; not a discernable form or pattern.

Scenario one; there will be an overload of input, That is the intensity of photons will be far greater than for a singular view.. I'm guessing the appearance will be that of a nondescript light source. Whereas for scenario two, it is addition of many observation products. I think in this case the appearance will be of a dark amorphous object. Darker, with less unique form or patterning where there is a lot of addition . 100 images may be enough to obscure any identifiable structure. This is easily done by adding each image as a new layer using translucent film or a computer program.

"Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: "no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." He coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP) from the Greek "anthropos", or human. He went further to suggest that "we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.""

https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/07/a-smoky-dragon-the-cosmos-is-a-participatory-universe-weekend-feature/

The observed phenomena are products being manifest. I'd add not only the far away and long ago are manifest but configurations that did not exist together but have been amalgamated from signals arriving together from different times (Object universe configurations).

For Wheeler, the word "observer" has little to do with humans or conscious beings. What he actually said was [link:vixra.org/abs/1804.0123#comment-4545191795]"what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."[/link]

In other words, reality (causes and their effects) is entirely "determined" by how all things behave, after they have detected the individual bits of information, that "trigger" their subsequent behavior.

In this view of reality, humans and conscious beings, are merely one type of "equipment" capable of "evoked responses"; but there are many others ("all things physical") that are far older and far more fundamental.

Rob McEachern

Hi Robert, I also gave a quote. Re. the one you provided: "All things physical are information -theoretic in origin..." Wheeler. That is so if by all things physical, the manifest products are being considered and the foundational source of the products is not considered as part of that 'All'. It is so whether the observer is a device and the process is automated or the observer is human. Either way humans are directly or indirectly involved in the acquisition of the products of the experiment. The idea of consciousness causes collapse comes from the double slit experiment. A detector providing 'which way' information seems to prevent an interference pattern result, as if the experiment knows it is being watched. Significantly, Only if the detector is switched on.

My hypothesis is an electric or magnetic field produced by the detector disrupts an environmental interference pattern that guides the particles travel. The premise is that there is an environment, even in a vacuum. Various non observer sources of fields can be tested. The aim to show it is not the act of observation itself causing the altered outcome. Another/ other experiments are needed to show it is due to an effect on the environment rather than a distributed particle. More doable is to show a distributed particle is unnecessary for the results usually obtained.

Hi Robert, I'll try to use an information theoretic approach. The results of the double slit experiment have to be participatory, in that the signal, channel and receiver are assembled and operated by human actions. The binary question, 'did it (the elements of the signal) go through one or both slits?' is a question emanating from the human mind. Participation is integral to the product 'reality'.

When a working 'which way' detector is included, I'm suggesting it is the kind of noise encountered by the signal in the channel that is changed. Which is not an effect of consciousness beyond placement of the detector and choosing on or off. The effect of the noise is independent of consciousness. Maybe the apparatus can be tested to see if the detector is the source of a field/fields. If undetectable that has no greater significance than the undetectability of superposition. This is contrary to the notion that the mind is creating underlying reality.

    Robert and Georgina,

    Your exchange illuminates an aspect of the Present State of Physics that continues to treat the physical form of any frequency of EMR as a binary choice of the (observer) theorist. Either its a particle or a wave, mutually exclusive. So a bit of information then becomes subject to being a binary choice as well, between detection of either a ballistic response (mathematically; a parabolic function) or sinusoidal response (mathematically; a hyperbolic function). The conundrum of Wave/Particle duality, superposition writ large.

    Suppose that we premise superposition to be time dependent? The duration of any frequency's wavelength being a cyclic variation of velocity effecting the density of the Quantum's physical form, such that at the lower limit of velocity the density exhibits inelastic properties and registers as a discrete mass while at the upper limit of velocity the density of the physical form exhibits elastic properties and registers as an energy field. The obvious objection would immediately present itself that this scenario would require that at peak periodic velocity, the physical form would have to be travelling in excess of the speed of light. A counter argument can be proposed that Light Velocity is a measurably universal constant precisely because that measurement is the consequence of a continuously changing rise and fall of velocity and as such Light Velocity would by definition be the Root Exponential Mean between nil and peak periodic velocity. Without getting into the math, that peak periodic velocity can be empirically derived as (c^1/e)c = 2.143^14 cm/sec.

    This would satisfy both demands of information in detection, As a low velocity particulate form the photon would interact with the inherent fields of the atomic aggregate composing the material the slits are cut into, and statistically the results would be what could be expected if it were to be constrained to passing through or being deflected by only one slit. While at higher velocity which would be for appreciably greater periods of duration, the photon in the form of a physical 3 dimensional soliton wave packet with large enough cross-section could pass through both slits. The technical capability to actually make countable the real numbers of photons still limits what we might theorize, but this hypothesis would be doable in experimental protocols statistically. best jrc

    Hi John, I think the variation of velocity idea is nice, providing both manifestations, but problematic. The photon is said to pass through both slits, wavelike but a screen just after the slits always finds a singular slit is being used. Assuming all the photons being alike rules out an undetectable sub population traversing two slits each. At low intensity a more distant screen has the interference caused pattern built up gradually by individual particle like photon collision. Taking that at face value, your varied velocity idea would need the photons to accelerate after the slits to become waves and interfere, then decelerate to collide with the screen as 'ballistic' particles.

    How is there an interference pattern already there, to serve as a guide? Possibilities: a). maybe from previous photon's travel using both slits but individually only one each. It requires interference of the effect of different photons and persistence of the disturbance; long enough to affect another. b) It is an effect due to the apparatus structure. Maybe miniscule vibration is enough to create 'environmental waves from the slits. c) An environmental disturbance (undetectable except by consequences) travelling ahead of the detectable photon passes through both slits/interferes, followed by detectable photon passing through just one.

    Non of these have a photon taking two paths but could result in an 'as if ' appearance.

    I'm unclear about the effect of a switched off detector. I read somewhere that the interference pattern is only lost if on. Is that so, or pop misinterpretation? If the 'which way detector is a polarizer ( rather than detection chamber or tube with a voltage),used asymmetrically it is altering the proposed environmental interference pattern that affects what the detectable photon does.

    Georgi,

    Just an offering, there is no lack of explanatory ideas out here. I'm not clear about an interference pattern being produced by a single slit, I'll have to browse up on that. The hype for the build up of single dots would be explained by the detection element of the apparatus naturally slowing the soliton to relative rest by its encounter with the EM fields of the material screen; hence it would become inelastic and particulate in effect. The model gets involved and being a personal endeavor doesn't deserve my beating my own drum on this topic. It definitely is not a conventionally accepted approach in the Present State of Physics. :-) jrc

    Thank you John, your idea makes more sense to me now. I like it.

    An interference pattern affected result is not produced from a single slit. Yet a particle can not be detected taking two slits, always one.