Well this is my last try on this.I'm not trying to be confrontational,my intention is to point out an inconsistency I think I see.If I'm wrong that's ok,just tell me why please. I honestly believe that the first chapter of that video could be in error.
Guys,please read this information about 'decoherence' which is part of the PMR rule set.
Here are some quotes from the article linked below:
" To find out how these processes can destroy the interference pattern and lead to classical behaviour, we gradually added gas to the chamber of our Talbot-Lau interferometer during the experiments with carbon-70 molecules (figure 3a). We found that the amount of contrast between the interference fringes fell exponentially as more gas was added, and that the fringes disappeared almost entirely when the pressure had reached just 10-6 mbar. This was in full quantitative agreement with a theoretical analysis of the scattering processes. Although a single collision with a gas molecule will not kick the massive fullerene out of the interferometer path, it is enough to destroy the interference pattern
because it carries sufficient information to determine the path that the interfering molecule has taken. The exponential decay is thus directly related to the collision probability.
"Notice that they didn't actually measure a single gas molecule's collision with the beam,but it seems that because they could in principle,the interference disappeared.They didn't have an ability to look ;or not look. The path information was part of the (virtual) environment at that point and was represented as such with the loss of an interference pattern.It didn't need to be put on a tape.The (virtual) environment and the detection screen act as the tape.
"We then looked at how a molecule's "internal temperature" affects interference. The concept of internal temperature is not relevant for atoms or electrons, but it is for molecules, which are complex objects. It describes the energy distribution of the many vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom. Hot objects, of course, emit thermal photons that are then absorbed by the environment, transferring momentum in the process. In other words, each photon can transfer information about the position of the emitting object that can, in principle, be measured. Indeed, when we increased the internal temperature of carbon-70 molecules to above 1000 K, the contrast between the interference fringes slowly disappeared
"When the cavity was empty - so that no which-path information could be deposited - the Paris team saw high-contrast atomic interference fringes. But when a small coherent field, containing as few as nine photons on average, was added to the resonator, the fringes became less pronounced. This indicated that the interference had been destroyed due to the entanglement with the phase of the mesoscopic coherent photon field.
"Entanglement between a quantum particle and its environment is not the only way of destroying interference. Noise - due to our inability to control all the experimental conditions sufficiently well - can also be a problem. In particular, experimentalists will have to fight the fact that random fluctuations in the relative length difference between the two interferometer arms can tend to wash out the interference pattern
"What seems to be the key factor in the transition from quantum to classical behaviour is the exchange of information between the quantum system and the outside world. This transition only depends on whether the experimental set-up allows - or does not allow - such information about the quantum system to be revealed. In the case of interference experiments, all that matters is that "which path" information is, in principle, available to the outside world. Contrary to popular belief, it is irrelevant whether a person actually makes the effort to find out that information
."This is what experiments showed,not opinions. I do not think this all means that reality is objective and that the result is really 'out there' while you don't look.But ,I do understand it to mean that when you do look, you will see a history that is consistent with the rules of QM which include 'decoherence' with the (virtual) environment.If you did something during the experiment to allow you to learn certain properties ,even in principle, then there will not be an intereference pattern when you look.
It finally states this:
"The crucial point is to acknowledge that no quantum object is completely isolated; rather it is embedded in an environment consisting of gas particles, photons and the like. The environmental state gets easily "entangled" with the quantum object, which causes information about the whereabouts of the quantum object to be rapidly disseminated into the surroundings. The absence of quantum behaviour in the macroworld is a natural consequence of the fact that bigger and more complex objects are much harder to isolate. In other words, the quantum features of the environmental interaction and the resulting information transfer lead to the appearance of classicality in quantum objects."I really think midix put it very concisely when he wrote: "Destroying the tool will not undo things done with it." Like I said before,double slit experiments don't just appear in the VR.The consciousness of a scientist-avatar plans them,puts them to together,and carries them out.
Wouldn't TBC know what the avatar did in the VR and wouldn't the consciousness of the avatar-scientist know that certain interactions consistently lead to certain outcomes in the VR?
Why should a segment of history in an experiment be erased because he/she didn't look at one step? After all the loss of interference doesn't mean there is an objective particle.Even if it's probability distribution is constrained by the 'history' of it's interaction with a slit detector,it is still none the less determined by probability....
If you know that you had slit detectors on and didn't scramble 'which path' info before detection,why would the outcome be inconsistent with this?Wouldn't a unit of consciousness know that the slit detectors were there and turned on because the experiment itself was planned in consciousness? Again I ask what's the difference between virtual 'macroscopic' (decohered) tapes from slit detectors and virtual 'macroscopic' (decohered) photo graphic plates ? Why is a backwall not able to reveal determined information but a tape is?