Can you define information without referring to consciousness?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 2K views
bcrelling
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
Any consciousness based approach to QM will be dismissed as woo in the main forum.

However it's admitted that (with refernece to the double slit experiment):

"To be clear, the rule for interference in these cases: if it is possible, in principle, to know which slit the particle goes through, there is NO interference and there will just be the 2 characteristic bands." -DrChinese

So my question is- can you define knowledge or information in a way which does not refer to consciousness?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
Going strictly by the title of this thread, I expected it to be about the US Congress. This is disappointing.
 
bcrelling said:
Any consciousness based approach to QM will be dismissed as woo in the main forum.

However it's admitted that (with refernece to the double slit experiment):

"To be clear, the rule for interference in these cases: if it is possible, in principle, to know which slit the particle goes through, there is NO interference and there will just be the 2 characteristic bands." -DrChinese

So my question is- can you define knowledge or information in a way which does not refer to consciousness?


Yes. Information theory is completely mathematical. But they aren't talking about meaning. I don't see any way to talk about knowledge or meaning without consciousness.

However I must say I never thought consciousness had anything to do with QM. Though I guess Neils Bohr thought so, and he is much smarter than I.
 
bcrelling said:
Any consciousness based approach to QM will be dismissed as woo in the main forum.
It's woo here too, the same rules apply throughout the forum.

Thread closed.