# PCT and the 2 Slit Experiment

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346>\
**Category:** CSG2010\
**Created:** [April 10, 2010, 12:03am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346 "2010-04-10T00:03:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 12:03am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/1 "2010-04-10T00:03:46Z")

</div>

Anybody got and ideas?

Regards

Gavin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 12:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/2 "2010-04-10T00:35:33Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2010.04.19.1833 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.04.09)

> Anybody got and  
> ideas?

I don’t see the two-slit experiment as involving any control systems,  
other than the experimenter.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 2:38am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/3 "2010-04-10T02:38:19Z")

</div>

( Gavin  
Ritz, 2010.04.10.14.28NZT)

[From Bill Powers  
(2010.04.19.1833 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.04.09)

Anybody got  
and ideas?

I don’t see the two-slit experiment as involving any control systems,

That’s  
correct. It has no meaning if there is no experimenter.

Just  
like Rick’s flyball experiment. The flyball doesn’t have any involvement  
in any control system unless there is a catcher.

other  
than the experimenter.

Yes,  
that’s so. Let’s talk about the experimenter. And the Copenhagen Interpretation. That  
would be the most pertinent issue relating to PCT.

How would  
PCT explain the dichotomy of the wave particle duality as in the Copenhagen Interpretation?

In terms  
of the control variable, perceptual signal and the reference signal.

Regards

Gavin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shannon\_Williams](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Shannon\_Williams](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Shannon_Williams)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:47am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/4 "2010-04-10T03:47:41Z")

</div>

[Shannon Williams 2010.04.09 23:00 CST]

Oh OH! Good topic. Perhaps a breakthough in how the experimenter  
understands how he controls his perceptions could lead to a break  
through in the wave particle duality or even in how gravity/magnetism  
etc apear to operate at a distance. Very cool!

I can't think of anything to say though. Maybe if you throw out a  
theory we can wrestle with it.

Best,  
Shannon

> **···**
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Gavin Ritz \<garritz@xtra.co.nz\> wrote:
> 
> > (Gavin Ritz, 2010.04.10.14.28NZT)
> > 
> > [From Bill Powers (2010.04.19.1833 MDT)]
> > 
> > Gavin Ritz (2010.04.09)
> > 
> > Anybody got and ideas?
> > 
> > I don't see the two-slit experiment as involving any control systems,
> > 
> > That�s correct. It has no meaning if there is no experimenter.
> > 
> > �Just like Rick�s flyball experiment. The flyball doesn�t have any  
> > involvement in any control system unless there is a catcher.
> > 
> > other than the experimenter.
> > 
> > Yes, that�s so. Let�s talk about the experimenter. And the Copenhagen  
> > Interpretation. That would be the most pertinent issue relating to PCT.
> > 
> > How would PCT explain the dichotomy of the wave particle duality as in the  
> > Copenhagen Interpretation?
> > 
> > In terms of the control variable, perceptual signal and the reference  
> > signal.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Gavin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:49am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/5 "2010-04-10T03:49:46Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.09.23.25]

> (Gavin Ritz,  
> 2010.04.10.14.28NZT)

> 

> 

> How would  
> PCT explain the dichotomy of the wave particle duality as in the  
> Copenhagen Interpretation?

> In terms  
> of the control variable, perceptual signal and the reference signal.

> 

Gavin, where do you see control being involved in the wave-particle  
duality or in its manifestation in the two slit experiment? In other  
words, what is your question?

vary the perceptual result of the experiment, and by what mechanism do  
you see this variation being achieved?

You need an answer at least to the first part of this two-part question  
before you can start to ask what you ask above and asked in your  
initial posting. If there is no-one or no-thing with a desire to bring  
about some specified perceptual result (the reference value) you can’t  
ask about a control analysis, any more than you can ask about the  
colour of the big armchair in an empty room.

For my part, I no longer see any “dichotomy” in the conjoint wave and  
particle nature of the world, so I may be blind to the thrust of your  
question. To me, wave and particle are just different aspects of  
looking at a thing, neither sufficient by itself, both inherent in  
anything that embodies the four forces currently identified in physics  
(material objects, electromagnetic signals …).

Your mention of “the Copenhagen interpretation” suggests you may be  
thinking of the so-called “collapse of the wavefunction” consequent on  
observation, but not everyone adheres to the Copenhagen interpretation.  
However, if we suppose the Copenhagen interpretation to be correct,  
what does your question mean? What kind of statement would constitute  
an answer?

Maybe if you specify precisely how you conceive the two slit experiment  
– what are the experimental conditions you imagine, and what are the  
intentions that lead you to consider that there should be an  
appropriate control analysis for them – then various people on this  
list could offer possible answers to your question.

Martin

> **···**
>
> from my side, I ask you who or what you see as having some desire to

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 10:02am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/6 "2010-04-10T10:02:22Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.10.21.46NZT)

[Martin Taylor  
2010.04.09.23.25]

(Gavin  
Ritz, 2010.04.10.14.28NZT)

How would PCT explain the dichotomy of the wave  
particle duality as in the Copenhagen Interpretation?

In terms of the control variable, perceptual  
signal and the reference signal.

Gavin, where do you see control being involved in the wave-particle duality or  
in its manifestation in the two slit experiment? In other words, what is your  
question?

What is  
the experimenter controlling, in the two slit experiment?

The Copenhagen  
Interpretation is just that. I have no other interpretation of what it means  
other than what it means.

perceptual result of the experiment, and by what mechanism do you see this  
variation being achieved?

You need an answer at least to the first part of this two-part question before  
you can start to ask what you ask above and asked in your initial posting. If  
there is no-one or no-thing with a desire to bring about some specified  
perceptual result (the reference value) you can’t ask about a control analysis,  
any more than you can ask about the colour of the big armchair in an empty  
room.

For my part, I no longer see any “dichotomy” in the conjoint wave and  
particle nature of the world, so I may be blind to the thrust of your question.  
To me, wave and particle are just different aspects of looking at a thing,  
neither sufficient by itself, both inherent in anything that embodies the four  
forces currently identified in physics (material objects, electromagnetic  
signals …).

Your mention of “the Copenhagen interpretation”  
suggests you may be thinking of the so-called “collapse of the  
wavefunction” consequent on observation, but not everyone adheres to the Copenhagen  
interpretation. However, if we suppose the Copenhagen interpretation to be  
correct, what does your question mean? What kind of statement would constitute  
an answer?

Maybe if you specify precisely how you conceive the two slit experiment

This  
makes no sense to me, the experiment is what it is there is no “my special  
interpretation of the two slit experiment”. To my knowledge the entire  
scientific community has complete agreement on what the two slit experiment is  
and the results thereof.

The question  
is clear, see my question above.

– what are the experimental conditions  
you imagine,

I’m  
not imagining anything other than what the experiment is. Can’t work out  
what you mean by this.

and what are the intentions

Not sure  
what you mean by this.

that lead you to consider that there should be an appropriate control  
analysis for them

Pretty  
simple really, there is a control system (the experimenter) clearly visualizing  
a particular set of outcomes from the experiment.

– then various people on this list  
could offer possible answers to your question.

I’m  
looking forward to some really interesting answers.

Regards

Gavin

> **···**
>
> from my side, I ask you who or what you see as having some desire to vary the

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 10:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/7 "2010-04-10T10:18:33Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.10.22.02NZT)

[Shannon Williams  
2010.04.09 23:00 CST]

Oh OH! Good topic. Perhaps a  
breakthough in how the experimenter

understands how he controls his perceptions  
could lead to a break

through in the wave particle duality

Yip

or even in how gravity/magnetism

etc apear to operate at a distance.  
Very cool!

Or maybe PCT can show  
once and for all its all in the mind.

It’s just a mixed  
up perceptual signal from the HPCT levels. I.e. some perceptual signal the visual  
perceptual is using one level of HPCT and another visual perceptual signal using  
another level. And that there’s seems like a duality but really its all  
in the mind.

Hey that’s just a  
wild ridiculous answer but then who knows.

There’s a game  
called car surfing where you lie with your back on the roof of the car and you’re  
strapped onto the car roof (looking up at the ceiling and the front of the car,  
head on the top of the windscreen, slightly tilted downwards) The driver of the  
car drives down a typical low roofed spiral car park exit ramp. The brain has  
no idea how to deal with the visuals and is totally confused. And actually combines  
the road and the ceiling. If the brain does this with such a simple game. What else  
can it do?

Maybe PCT has the answers.

Regards

Gavin

I can’t think of anything to say  
though. Maybe if you throw out a

theory we can wrestle with it.

Best,

Shannon

> (Gavin Ritz, 2010.04.10.14.28NZT)

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> [From Bill Powers  
> (2010.04.19.1833 MDT)]

> 

> Gavin Ritz (2010.04.09)

> 

> Anybody got and ideas?

> 

> I don’t see the two-slit experiment as involving  
> any control systems,

> 

> That’s correct. It has no meaning if there  
> is no experimenter.

> 

> Just like Rick’s flyball experiment. The flyball doesn’t have any

> involvement in any control system unless there is  
> a catcher.

> 

> other than the experimenter.

> 

> Yes, that’s so. Let’s talk about the  
> experimenter. And the Copenhagen

> Interpretation. That would be the most pertinent  
> issue relating to PCT.

> 

> How would PCT explain the dichotomy of the wave  
> particle duality as in the

> Copenhagen Interpretation?

> 

> In terms of the control variable, perceptual  
> signal and the reference

> **···**
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Gavin Ritz [garritz@xtra.co.nz](mailto:garritz@xtra.co.nz) wrote:
> 
> > signal.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Regards
> 
> > 
> 
> > Gavin
> 
> > 
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/8 "2010-04-10T12:58:32Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]

The experimenter controls his perceptions as he sets up the experiment. The experimenter controls the perceptions associated with recording the results of the experiment. The results of the experiment are uncontrolled perceptions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/9 "2010-04-10T17:04:34Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.11.43]

> (Gavin Ritz 2010.04.10.21.46NZT)

> [Martin  
> Taylor  
> 2010.04.09.23.25]

> (Gavin  
> Ritz, 2010.04.10.14.28NZT)

> 

> 

> How would  
> PCT explain the dichotomy of the wave  
> particle duality as in the Copenhagen Interpretation?

> In terms of  
> the control variable, perceptual  
> signal and the reference signal.

> 

> Gavin, where do you see control being involved in the wave-particle  
> duality or  
> in its manifestation in the two slit experiment? In other words, what  
> is your  
> question?

> What is  
> the experimenter controlling, in the two slit experiment?

His perceptions that the light source is where she has a reference  
value for them to be, that the slits, prisms, reflectors,  
beamsplitters, and the rest of the apparatus are where he has a  
reference for them to be, that the source is switched on and off when  
she has a reference for those events to happen, etc. etc. The  
experimenter is controlling lots of perceptions when setting up the  
experiment, including controlling for an imagined perception of the set  
of results that may come from executing the experiment. The  
experimenter is not controlling for which member of the set of possible  
results will occur.

> 

> The  
> Copenhagen  
> Interpretation is just that. I have no other interpretation of what it  
> means  
> other than what it means.

Please make your interpretation of it explicit, if you want to get any  
serious discussion going. There’s no point in asking about such  
multi-interpretable things (Bohr’s interpretation, or which subsequent  
variant?) unless we know exactly what you think you are asking about.  
If one of us answers when thinking of one view of the Copenhagen  
interpretation when you are thinking of something else, confusion will  
be hard to avoid (as you have seen so often on this mailing list in  
other threads).

The same applies to your (missing) description of what you imagine to  
be the experimental setup and the different results obtained under  
different experimental conditions. Please make them explicit, rather  
than assuming everybody, with or without a physics background, has the  
same concept of the basis for your questions. I’m trying to get you to  
ask your question in a way that the non-physicists on the mailing list  
can both understand and consider meaningfully.

> > From my side, I ask you who or what you see as having some desire  
> > to vary the  
> > perceptual result of the experiment, and by what mechanism do you see  
> > this  
> > variation being achieved?
> 
> You need an answer at least to the first part of this two-part question  
> before  
> you can start to ask what you ask above and asked in your initial  
> posting. If  
> there is no-one or no-thing with a desire to bring about some specified  
> perceptual result (the reference value) you can’t ask about a control  
> analysis,  
> any more than you can ask about the colour of the big armchair in an  
> empty  
> room.
> 
> …
> 
> Maybe if you specify precisely how you conceive the two slit experiment

> This  
> makes no sense to me, the experiment is what it is there is no “my  
> special  
> interpretation of the two slit experiment”. To my knowledge the entire  
> scientific community has complete agreement on what the two slit  
> experiment is  
> and the results thereof.

You are talking to a community of psychologists, not physicists, and I  
doubt whether half of them even have heard of the two-slit experiment,  
let alone realize that there are lots of variants of it in the  
literature, including very recent ones.

I never suggested you had a “special interpretation” of the experiment.  
I asked you to describe the experiment as you saw it, and to answer a  
couple of absolutely basic questions whose answers must be clear before  
we can have a coherent discussion. Please at least try to answer the  
first question I made explicit above: “Who or what do you see as having  
some desire to vary the perceptual result of the experiment”. We can  
address the second question, of possible mechanism (environmental  
feedback path) when you answer the first.

> The question  
> is clear, see my question above.

I find that when a questioner says that the question is clear, and the  
respondent says it isn’t, the questioner usually doesn’t get an answer  
he finds satisfactory.

> – what are the experimental  
> conditions  
> you imagine,

> I’m  
> not imagining anything other than what the experiment is. Can’t work  
> out  
> what you mean by this.

I accept that you aren’t imagining anything other than what the  
experiment is. I don’t know what that is, perhaps because I have been  
interested in physics for too long and know of many variants of the  
experiment; others may not know what you are imagining because they  
have no physics background at all. Either way, you could allow us to  
have an idea, if you wanted. Let me try a template for a possible  
description of the experimental conditions you may be imagining:

1. A light source is set up (is this a coherent source, are photons  
emitted individually under control or freely, etc., etc.)

2. A screen is interposed that allow the light to pass through two  
parallel slits (what happens to the light path between the source and  
the slits? Where are the beamsplitters, and how are the paths between  
the slits phased? If the source is coherent, how is it spread so that  
individual photons are equally likely to pass through either slit, if  
particle-like, or have equal amplitude if wave-like, etc. etc? Are both  
slits necessarily open simultaneously?)

3. What conditions correspond to observing (making possible an  
observation of) which slit(s) the photon uses in its passage to the  
screen?

4. A screen records (observes) the passage of a photon. (What does the  
screen actually do to make this record/observation, and what does the  
experimenter perceive?)

5. What differential results may be observed dependent on what  
conditions of the foregoing?

Starting with a template something like that, could you describe how  
you conceive the experiment?

> and what are the intentions

> Not sure  
> what you mean by this.

I tried to use everyday language, but translating “what are the  
intentions” into PCT-talk, I asked: You have an implicit assumption  
that there is an entity (person or thing) controlling some perceptions;  
given that assumption, what is the entity, and what are the possible  
reference values for what controlled perceptions?

> that lead you to consider that there should  
> be an appropriate control  
> analysis for them

> Pretty  
> simple really, there is a control system (the experimenter) clearly  
> visualizing  
> a particular set of outcomes from the experiment.

That is a partial answer to the question “what are the intentions”. It  
is an answer to “what is the entity”. It does not answer what the  
controlled perceptions might be, nor what reference values the  
experimenter has for those perceptions. If, as your statement implies  
but does not explicitly say, the experimenter is controlling for a  
particular outcome of the experiment, either she is a dishonest  
experimenter or you misunderstand the nature of control. If the  
experimenter is controlling for the outcome of the experiment to be a  
yet-to-be-determined member of a set of possible outcomes, then the  
controlled perceptions are those mentioned above in relation to the  
physical setup of the experiment. The set itself is a perception  
controlled in the experimenter’s imagination, with a reference value  
that is itself a set, the set of possibilities created by the  
experimental setup. Changing the setup is the experimenter’s  
environmental feedback means of controlling the “set of possible  
outcomes” perception.

Visualizing a set of possible outcomes does not constitute control.  
Control requires there to be a controlled perception, meaning that the  
controller acts on the environment so as to produce a particular  
(reference) value of a perception. Simply accepting whatever value of a  
perception the environment provides, without influencing it, is not  
control. An experimenter controls her perceptions of the experimental  
setup, but does not control his perceptions of the results (at least an  
honest experimenter doesn’t).

> – then various  
> people on this list  
> could offer possible answers to your question.

> I’m  
> looking forward to some really interesting answers.

Shannon seems to know what you are talking about, but I have seen no  
evidence anyone else does. I certainly don’t. Apparently I was wrong in  
thinking you were concerned with the collapse of the wavefunction that  
is inherent in what I understand to be the Copenhagen interpretation.  
If you had been thinking of that, there’s no PCT issue, since the  
output action of observing (or making possible an observation) would be  
the means of controlling for observing a particle-like or a wave-like  
result.

I make the suggestions above in the hope that if you explain more  
clearly just what you are getting at, you might justifiably look  
forward to an interesting set of answers.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/10 "2010-04-10T17:14:27Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.10.1015)]

> **···**
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Gavin Ritz [garritz@xtra.co.nz](mailto:garritz@xtra.co.nz) wrote:
> 
> > Anybody got and ideas?
> 
> One thing that strikes me (regarding the relationship between PCT and the 2 slit experiment) is the fact that physicists readily accept the idea that the surprising results of these simple little experiments reveals some deep truth about the nature of physical reality while psychologists (and laymen) typically dismiss the idea that the equally surprising results of our simple little compensatory tracking experiments reveal a deep truth about the nature of psychological reality. I have never heard people dismiss the results of the 2 slit experiments as “trivial” but I frequently hear people (particularly reviewers) dismiss the results of my tracking experiments this way. So that’s the relationship I see between PCT and the 2 slit experiment. The 2 slit experiment reveals physics to be a far more mature science than psychology.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shannon\_Williams](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Shannon\_Williams](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Shannon_Williams)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/11 "2010-04-10T18:45:31Z")

</div>

[Shannon Williams 2010.04.10.1300]

> [From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]
> 
> The results of the experiment are uncontrolled perceptions.

But when the experimenter 'tries to make sense' of the uncontrolled  
perceptions, he does so by comparing them to his existing references.  
So although the complete set of results might include uncontrolled  
perceptions, he only perceives and makes note of the controlled ones.  
If he correctly controlled all of the relevant perceptions then he  
would not need the concept of 'duallity' to explain the results.

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.11.43]

> The experimenter is not controlling for which member of the set of possible results will occur.

The issue isn't the results. The issue is the interpreation of the  
results. 'Duallity' is a reference in the brain used to control the  
results.

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.10.1015)]

> The 2 slit experiment reveals physics to be a far more mature science than psychology.

The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit  
experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a  
reference that is built of perceptions that are only in their heads.  
The interesting part of Gavin's question is: how can the theorizer  
use his knowledge of how he controlls his perceptions to help him  
discover which of his references prevents him from percieving what  
would be simple to percieve if the reference were different.

Best,  
Shannon

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/12 "2010-04-10T19:12:35Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.1512 EDT)]

> [Shannon Williams 2010.04.10.1300]
> 
> > [From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]
> > 
> > The results of the experiment are uncontrolled perceptions.
> 
> SW: But when the experimenter ‘tries to make sense’ of the uncontrolled  
> perceptions, he does so by comparing them to his existing references.  
> So although the complete set of results might include uncontrolled  
> perceptions, he only perceives and makes note of the controlled ones.  
> If he correctly controlled all of the relevant perceptions then he  
> would not need the concept of ‘duallity’ to explain the results.

BG: I don’t think the experimenter ever controls the uncontrolled perceptions. They are what they are. Any effort to control them is called fraud. It is not true that he only perceives and takes note of the controlled perceptions. Most of our perceptions are uncontrolled. We take no action to bring them to desired reference states. As far as I can tell, your claim that if the experimenter correctly controlled all the relevant perceptions he would not need the concept of duality to explain the results comes awfully close to wishful thinking. Unless you are saying that his life would be simpler if he fudged the results. With that I can agree.

> [Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.11.43]
> 
> > The experimenter is not controlling for which member of the set of possible results will occur.
> 
> SW: The issue isn’t the results. The issue is the interpreation of the  
> results. ‘Duallity’ is a reference in the brain used to control the  
> results.

BG: I assume by “duality” you are referring to the need to make use of probability amplitudes to explain (model) the outcome of the experiments. The only control that seems to me to be involved in this process is the control needed to carry out the calculations. No one that I know is controlling a perception of duality. Perhaps I miss your point.

> [From Rick Marken (2010.04.10.1015)]
> 
> > The 2 slit experiment reveals physics to be a far more mature science than psychology.
> 
> SW: The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit  
> experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a  
> reference that is built of perceptions that are only in their heads.  
> The interesting part of Gavin’s question is: how can the theorizer  
> use his knowledge of how he controlls his perceptions to help him  
> discover which of his references prevents him from percieving what  
> would be simple to percieve if the reference were different.

BG: Either you know something that the rest of us don’t or you are making an unsubstantiated claim. It is true that we see the world in terms of particles and waves and that these two representations are very different. The simplest “solution” to this “problem” is to simply say that light consists of particles called photons. When you want to predict how light will behave you must invoke a model that involves waves (probability amplitudes). The model, however, is not the the physical world. In the physical world there are only photons; there are no waves as far as we know.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/13 "2010-04-10T21:38:59Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.16.46]

> [Shannon Williams 2010.04.10.1300]
> 
> > [From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]
> > 
> > The results of the experiment are uncontrolled perceptions.  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> 
> But when the experimenter 'tries to make sense' of the uncontrolled  
> perceptions, he does so by comparing them to his existing references.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
> That makes no sense to me. References are values that the perceiver would like the corresponding controlled perceptions to take. Each controlled perception is compared only to its own reference value. If a perception is uncontrolled, it has effectively no reference value. So what can it mean to compare an uncontrolled perception to an existing reference, let alone to the whole set of existing references?

If you mean that the experimenter might look at the results and say "I don't like that result, and must change the setup to get the result I do like", then you aren't talking about an honest experimenter.

> So although the complete set of results might include uncontrolled  
> perceptions, he only perceives and makes note of the controlled ones.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
> It's probably true that one does not "make note of" (consciously become aware of) most uncontrolled perceptions. It is accepted that one is not aware of most controlled perceptions, so why should it not be true even more strongly of uncontrolled ones? Looking at the other side of the question, what is it about perceptions not at the moment being controlled that makes them not be perceived (I presume you mean "in conscious awareness" when you say "perceived" in this context)? We (most of us, most of the time) don't control our perception of the height of the sun in the sky, but we can easily be aware of it, as we can of a myriad of other perceptions we don't, at that moment, control.

When you are talking about an honest experiment, all interesting results are uncontrolled. Even in a tracking study, what is controlled is the moment-by-moment cursor location, whereas the experimental result may be how well that matches the target location, or the phase shift of the cursor relevant to the track as a fucntion of frequency, or something like that. The experimental result is a set of one or more perceptions, all uncontrolled.

> If he correctly controlled all of the relevant perceptions then he  
> would not need the concept of 'duallity' to explain the results.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
> The logic of this jump escapes me.

What I think you may be talking about is the existence of perceptual functions, particularly at the category level. If you have a perceptual function that outputs a value "degree of particle-ness" and another that outputs a value of "degree of waviness", and you have reorganized so that for you these are mutually inhibitory, then you need a concept of duality. But if you have a perceptual function that outputs a value for "degree of wavicle-ness", you don't.

In most every day, human-scale, objects and events, the concept of "particleness" seems to correspond with a unitary motion -- all parts of the object move together. But this is not true of, for example, a flag in the breeze, for which you can perceive a "degree of waviness" at the same time as a "degree of particle-ness". A flag is a wavy coherent object. I imagine an entity with a mass of a few or a few thousand electron volts as much the same. It has a more or less extended waviness over space, and a more or less precise location and coherent motion. But it's no more a particle XOR a wave than is a flag. Wherein is the need for "duality"?

> [Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.11.43]  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> 
> > The experimenter is not controlling for which member of the set of possible results will occur.  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> 
> The issue isn't the results. The issue is the interpreation of the  
> results. 'Duallity' is a reference in the brain used to control the  
> results.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
> The results are what they are. An honest experimenter does not "control the results". "Interpretation" is the generation or emulation of a perceptual function that allows the results to be consistent with other perceptual functions. It's much the same, at a different level, as the problem that a chair cannot at the same time be perceived as all red and all blue and all green. If you have developed perceptual functions that operate so that an entity can't at the same time be a particle and a wave, then you have a problem at, perhaps, the program level, when you get results that are consistent with it being both. It's the same as having experimental results that show your chair to be simultaneously all red and all blue. Maybe if you had a perceptual function for the category "purple" you wouldn't have a problem, and would be asking "when do the conditions make it look blue and when do they make it look red, even though I believe it to be both all the time?.

The issue (in the two-slit experiment) is the role of observation in altering the results so that sometimes it seems more as though the entity is a particle and sometimes more as though it is a wave. That issue is not affected by your (in)ability to perceive it as being both at the same time.

> [From Rick Marken (2010.04.10.1015)]  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> 
> > The 2 slit experiment reveals physics to be a far more mature science than psychology.
> 
> The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a  
> reference that is built of perceptions that are only in their heads.

Again you use the word "reference", which, in PCT, means "a desired value for an existing type of perception". You can't "forge" a reference, whether by "forge" you refer to a blacksmith or to a counterfeiter. I think you want a different word. I would rephrase this sentence as follows:

"The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit  
experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a  
new perceptual function that is built of perceptions that are only in their heads, as are all perceptual functions."

That's a pretty good description of what theorists usually do. You can "forge" (blacksmith sense) new perceptual functions, and you may even develop desired values (references) for those new perceptions.

> The interesting part of Gavin's question is: how can the theorizer  
> use his knowledge of how he controlls his perceptions to help him  
> discover which of his references prevents him from percieving what  
> would be simple to percieve if the reference were different.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
> Even with rephrasing, I don't understand that. Unless one is Buddha, perhaps, one does not know how one controls his perceptions, though it is possible that some perception is of the control of some other. Knowledge of how one controls one's perceptions would be irrelevant in discovering which perceptions were being controlled, which is equivalent to discovering which references were currently effective.

No amount of knowledge of one's own reference values could affect what one actually perceives, though it might be possible to realize (perceive) that one was, like Lord Nelson, controlling not to acquire some potentially available sensory data (putting the telescope to one's blind eye). Likewise, no variation of reference values would affect what one actually perceives, though the resulting errors in the corresponding control systems might well induce actions that affected the corresponding controlled perceptions. Overall, that paragraph sounds a bit like word salad to me. Perhaps you could rewrite it. I would try, but I don't know what you are getting at. Sorry.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/14 "2010-04-10T22:05:01Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.1804 EDT)]

> [Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.16.46]
> 
> In most every day, human-scale, objects and events, the concept of “particleness” seems to correspond with a unitary motion – all parts of the object move together. But this is not true of, for example, a flag in the breeze, for which you can perceive a “degree of waviness” at the same time as a “degree of particle-ness”. A flag is a wavy coherent object. I imagine an entity with a mass of a few or a few thousand electron volts as much the same. It has a more or less extended waviness over space, and a more or less precise location and coherent motion. But it’s no more a particle XOR a wave than is a flag. Wherein is the need for “duality”?

BG: You are not alone in that way of thinking of a sub-atomic particle, but there is another picture that may be more helpful. In this picture a photon is always a particle. However, when you want to calculate how it moves from point A to point B, you have to account for all possible paths. Each path has a wavelength associate with it, and these paths can interfere the way waves do. This is, of course, the picture we owe to Feynman, and is probably the one most physicists would give if they were pressed to do so.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/15 "2010-04-10T22:46:21Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2010.04.10.1642 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.16.46

> In most every day, human-scale, objects and events, the concept of "particleness" seems to correspond with a unitary motion -- all parts of the object move together. But this is not true of, for example, a flag in the breeze, for which you can perceive a "degree of waviness" at the same time as a "degree of particle-ness". A flag is a wavy coherent object. I imagine an entity with a mass of a few or a few thousand electron volts as much the same. It has a more or less extended waviness over space, and a more or less precise location and coherent motion. But it's no more a particle XOR a wave than is a flag. Wherein is the need for "duality"?

Martin, that is the most beautiful explanation of a wavicle that I have ever seen. It makes the concept sensible and possible instead of self-contradictory and mysterious. Thank you very much. Phil Runkle, I am absolutely sure, would be echoing my thanks.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory6](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory6)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/16 "2010-04-10T23:01:18Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.1900 EDT)]

> [From Bill Powers (2010.04.10.1642 MDT)]
> 
> Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.16.46
> 
> > In most every day, human-scale, objects and events, the concept of “particleness” seems to correspond with a unitary motion – all parts of the object move together. But this is not true of, for example, a flag in the breeze, for which you can perceive a “degree of waviness” at the same time as a “degree of particle-ness”. A flag is a wavy coherent object. I imagine an entity with a mass of a few or a few thousand electron volts as much the same. It has a more or less extended waviness over space, and a more or less precise location and coherent motion. But it’s no more a particle XOR a wave than is a flag. Wherein is the need for “duality”?
> 
> Martin, that is the most beautiful explanation of a wavicle that I have ever seen. It makes the concept sensible and possible instead of self-contradictory and mysterious. Thank you very much. Phil Runkle, I am absolutely sure, would be echoing my thanks.

BG: The description is nice, but it has one limitation. The wavicle must be large enough to pass through both slits in the two-slit experiment. A wavicle arriving from the Andromeda galaxy must be _really_ big.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shannon\_Williams](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Shannon\_Williams](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Shannon_Williams)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/17 "2010-04-10T23:46:05Z")

</div>

[Shannon Williams 2010.04.10.1300]

OK. Martin, Bruce, et al. If you want to argue that there is nothing  
more to be understood about 2-slit experiment, and that 100 years from  
now the people will not know more about how to perceive any aspect of  
the experiment, then fine. Surely there exists some physical  
phenomenon isolated by some experiment which still baffles theorists.  
(Or for that matter, how does gravity operate from a distance?) The  
point is that someday, future theorists will no longer be baffled.  
They will run the experiment and get the exact same results, but they  
will have different references. The question is: how does the  
theorist identify the blocking references? For example, if you have a  
reference that prevents temperature from rising above 100 degrees,  
you will never know what you feel like at 101 degrees. If you have a  
reference that prevents you from being silent in the presence of  
another person, you will never know what it is like to see another  
person in contemplation. If you have a reference that prevents X, you  
will never be able to see that gravity is not working from a distance.  
How do we isolate these references?

Best,  
Shannon

> **···**
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Martin Taylor \<mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net\> wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.16.46]
> > 
> > > [Shannon Williams 2010.04.10.1300]
> > > 
> > > > [From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]
> > > > 
> > > > The results of the experiment are uncontrolled perceptions.
> > > 
> > > But when the experimenter 'tries to make sense' of the uncontrolled  
> > > perceptions, he does so by comparing them to his existing references.
> > 
> > That makes no sense to me. References are values that the perceiver would  
> > like the corresponding controlled perceptions to take. Each controlled  
> > perception is compared only to its own reference value. If a perception is  
> > uncontrolled, it has effectively no reference value. So what can it mean to  
> > compare an uncontrolled perception to an existing reference, let alone to  
> > the whole set of existing references?
> > 
> > If you mean that the experimenter might look at the results and say "I don't  
> > like that result, and must change the setup to get the result I do like",  
> > then you aren't talking about an honest experimenter.
> > 
> > > So although the complete set of results might include uncontrolled  
> > > perceptions, he only perceives and makes note of the controlled ones.
> > 
> > It's probably true that one does not "make note of" (consciously become  
> > aware of) most uncontrolled perceptions. It is accepted that one is not  
> > aware of most controlled perceptions, so why should it not be true even more  
> > strongly of uncontrolled ones? Looking at the other side of the question,  
> > what is it about perceptions not at the moment being controlled that makes  
> > them not be perceived (I presume you mean "in conscious awareness" when you  
> > say "perceived" in this context)? We (most of us, most of the time) don't  
> > control our perception of the height of the sun in the sky, but we can  
> > easily be aware of it, as we can of a myriad of other perceptions we don't,  
> > at that moment, control.
> > 
> > When you are talking about an honest experiment, all interesting results are  
> > uncontrolled. Even in a tracking study, what is controlled is the  
> > moment-by-moment cursor location, whereas the experimental result may be how  
> > well that matches the target location, or the phase shift of the cursor  
> > relevant to the track as a fucntion of frequency, or something like that.  
> > The experimental result is a set of one or more perceptions, all  
> > uncontrolled.
> > 
> > > If he correctly controlled all of the relevant perceptions then he  
> > > would not need the concept of 'duallity' to explain the results.
> > 
> > The logic of this jump escapes me.
> > 
> > What I think you may be talking about is the existence of perceptual  
> > functions, particularly at the category level. If you have a perceptual  
> > function that outputs a value "degree of particle-ness" and another that  
> > outputs a value of "degree of waviness", and you have reorganized so that  
> > for you these are mutually inhibitory, then you need a concept of duality.  
> > But if you have a perceptual function that outputs a value for "degree of  
> > wavicle-ness", you don't.
> > 
> > In most every day, human-scale, objects and events, the concept of  
> > "particleness" seems to correspond with a unitary motion -- all parts of the  
> > object move together. But this is not true of, for example, a flag in the  
> > breeze, for which you can perceive a "degree of waviness" at the same time  
> > as a "degree of particle-ness". A flag is a wavy coherent object. I imagine  
> > an entity with a mass of a few or a few thousand electron volts as much the  
> > same. It has a more or less extended waviness over space, and a more or less  
> > precise location and coherent motion. But it's no more a particle XOR a wave  
> > than is a flag. Wherein is the need for "duality"?
> > 
> > > [Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.11.43]
> > > 
> > > > The experimenter is not controlling for which member of the set of  
> > > > possible results will occur.
> > > 
> > > The issue isn't the results. �The issue is the interpreation of the  
> > > results. �'Duallity' is a reference in the brain used to control the  
> > > results.
> > 
> > The results are what they are. An honest experimenter does not "control the  
> > results". "Interpretation" is the generation or emulation of a perceptual  
> > function that allows the results to be consistent with other perceptual  
> > functions. It's much the same, at a different level, as the problem that a  
> > chair cannot at the same time be perceived as all red and all blue and all  
> > green. If you have developed perceptual functions that operate so that an  
> > entity can't at the same time be a particle and a wave, then you have a  
> > problem at, perhaps, the program level, when you get results that are  
> > consistent with it being both. It's the same as having experimental results  
> > that show your chair to be simultaneously all red and all blue. Maybe if you  
> > had a perceptual function for the category "purple" you wouldn't have a  
> > problem, and would be asking "when do the conditions make it look blue and  
> > when do they make it look red, even though I believe it to be both all the  
> > time?.
> > 
> > The issue (in the two-slit experiment) is the role of observation in  
> > altering the results so that sometimes it seems more as though the entity is  
> > a particle and sometimes more as though it is a wave. That issue is not  
> > affected by your (in)ability to perceive it as being both at the same time.
> > 
> > > [From Rick Marken (2010.04.10.1015)]
> > > 
> > > > The 2 slit experiment reveals physics to be a far more mature science  
> > > > than psychology.
> > > 
> > > The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit  
> > > � experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a  
> > > reference that is built of perceptions that are only in their heads.
> > 
> > Again you use the word "reference", which, in PCT, means "a desired value  
> > for an existing type of perception". You can't "forge" a reference, whether  
> > by "forge" you refer to a blacksmith or to a counterfeiter. I think you want  
> > a different word. I would rephrase this sentence as follows:
> > 
> > "The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit  
> > experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a  
> > new perceptual function that is built of perceptions that are only in their  
> > heads, as are all perceptual functions."
> > 
> > That's a pretty good description of what theorists usually do. You can  
> > "forge" (blacksmith sense) new perceptual functions, and you may even  
> > develop desired values (references) for those new perceptions.
> > 
> > > The interesting part of Gavin's question is: �how can the theorizer  
> > > use his knowledge of how he controlls his perceptions to help him  
> > > discover which of his references prevents him from percieving what  
> > > would be simple to percieve if the reference were different.
> > 
> > Even with rephrasing, I don't understand that. Unless one is Buddha,  
> > perhaps, one does not know how one controls his perceptions, though it is  
> > possible that some perception is of the control of some other. Knowledge of  
> > how one controls one's perceptions would be irrelevant in discovering which  
> > perceptions were being controlled, which is equivalent to discovering which  
> > references were currently effective.
> > 
> > No amount of knowledge of one's own reference values could affect what one  
> > actually perceives, though it might be possible to realize (perceive) that  
> > one was, like Lord Nelson, controlling not to acquire some potentially  
> > available sensory data (putting the telescope to one's blind eye). Likewise,  
> > no variation of reference values would affect what one actually perceives,  
> > though the resulting errors in the corresponding control systems might well  
> > induce actions that affected the corresponding controlled perceptions.  
> > Overall, that paragraph sounds a bit like word salad to me. Perhaps you  
> > could rewrite it. I would try, but I don't know what you are getting at.  
> > Sorry.
> > 
> > Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 1:09am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/18 "2010-04-11T01:09:44Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers(2010.04.10.1834 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.04.10.1900 EDT) –

> > bp earlier: Martin, that is the  
> > most beautiful explanation of a wavicle that I have ever  
> > seen

> > BG: The description is nice, but  
> > it has one limitation. The wavicle must be large enough to pass through  
> > both slits in the two-slit experiment. A wavicle arriving from the  
> > Andromeda galaxy must be _really_ big.

BP: The basic problem is how two wavicles arriving through different  
slits at well-separated times can produce interference patterns. I came  
up with an alternate explanation, which has had remarkably little  
influence. It is that when each wavicle gets to a slit, diffracts, and  
reaches the detector, it leaves a pattern in the form of persistent  
oscillations in the atoms of the detector material. The next wavicle  
allowed to reach the detector through the other slit also leaves a  
persistent oscillation pattern in the detector, which interacts with the  
first persistent oscillation, in phase, out of phase, or in between  
depending on the separation of the points, resulting in interference  
patterns on, or rather in, the surface of the detector. These patterns  
represent interference not between the wavicles, but between effects of  
the wavicles in the material of the detector. This accounts for the  
apparent ability of photons arriving at well-separated times to show  
interactions with each other. The interactions are not really  
wavicle-to-wavicle but effect-to-effect in the detector material. This  
eliminates the need for interactions between wavicles which are not  
simultaneously present.

This idea should be testable by having the material of the detector move  
enough between arrivals of wavicles so different areas are exposed to the  
arrivals of photons from the different slits. That should eliminate the  
interference patterns if the interaction is in the material, but the  
pattern should persist if the interaction is – somehow – between the  
waves just before they are absorbed.

A wikipedia article included this interesting paragraph:

> **···**
>
> =============================================================================
> 
> However, an experiment performed in  
> 1987[  
> [7]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#cite_note-Mittelstaedt-6) produced results that demonstrated that which-path  
> information could be obtained without destroying the possibility of  
> interference. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the  
> particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the  
> interference pattern only to a comparable extent.
> 
> [
> 
> > **[Double-slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)**
> >
> > In modern physics, the double-slit experiment demonstrates that light and matter can exhibit behavior associated with both classical particles and classical waves. This type of experiment was first described by Thomas Young in 1801 when making his case for the wave behavior of visible light. In 1927, Davisson and Germer and, independently, George Paget Thomson and his research student Alexander Reid demonstrated that electrons show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and m 
> > Th...
> 
> # ]([Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment))
> 
> That is more in line with my explanation than the quantum-mechanical  
> one.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 1:39am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/19 "2010-04-11T01:39:21Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2010.01.11.13.33NZT)

[Shannon Williams  
2010.04.10.1300]

> [From Bruce Gregory  
> (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]

It’s beginning to sound  
like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory. (That’s Quantum Mechanics).

Actually Rick’s flyball experiment is  
very pertinent to this.

You’ve hit the nail on  
the Head, Shannon.

Maybe PCT after all can explain  
this. We just need to come up with a very good (Where do you live Bill?) Lafayette Interpretation.

Regards

Gavin

> 

> The results of the experiment are uncontrolled  
> perceptions.

But when the experimenter ‘tries to make sense’ of the  
uncontrolled

perceptions, he does so by comparing them to his  
existing references.

So although the complete set of results might include  
uncontrolled

perceptions, he only perceives and makes note of the  
controlled ones.

If he correctly controlled all of the relevant perceptions  
then he

would not need the concept of ‘duallity’ to explain  
the results.

[Martin Taylor  
2010.04.10.11.43]

> 

> The experimenter is not controlling for which  
> member of the set of possible results will occur.

The issue isn’t the results. The issue is the  
interpreation of the

results. ‘Duallity’ is a reference in the brain used  
to control the

results.

[From Rick Marken  
(2010.04.10.1015)]

> 

> The 2 slit experiment reveals physics to be a far  
> more mature science than psychology.

> 

The 2 slit experiments may be more mature, but when  
the 2 slit

experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are  
forging a

reference that is built of perceptions that are only  
in their heads.

The interesting part of Gavin’s question is: how can  
the theorizer

use his knowledge of how he controlls his perceptions  
to help him

discover which of his references prevents him from  
percieving what

would be simple to percieve if the reference were  
different.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 1:45am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346/20 "2010-04-11T01:45:08Z")

</div>

( Gavin  
Ritz 2010.04.11.13.41)

[From Bruce  
Gregory (2010.04.10.1512 EDT)]

[Shannon Williams  
2010.04.10.1300]

[From Bruce  
Gregory (2010.04.10.0857 EDT)]

Bruce do you actually believe there is such things called photons. Or do  
you think that is just a very clever interpretation of some reality we are  
trying to interpret. Do you actually believe there are also such things called hydrogen  
or is that just an interpretation of something? Albeit an extremely clever one  
with universal acceptance. (discounting the creationist).

> 

> The results of the  
> experiment are uncontrolled perceptions.

SW: But when the experimenter ‘tries to make sense’ of the uncontrolled

perceptions, he does so by comparing them to his existing references.

So although the complete set of results might include uncontrolled

perceptions, he only perceives and makes note of the controlled ones.

If he correctly controlled all of the relevant perceptions then he

would not need the concept of ‘duallity’ to explain the results.

BG: I don’t think the  
experimenter ever controls the uncontrolled perceptions. They are what they  
are. Any effort to control them is called fraud. It is not true that he only  
perceives and takes note of the controlled perceptions. Most of our perceptions  
are uncontrolled. We take no action to bring them to desired reference states.  
As far as I can tell, your claim that if the experimenter correctly controlled  
all the relevant perceptions he would not need the concept of duality to  
explain the results comes awfully close to wishful thinking. Unless you are  
saying that his life would be simpler if he fudged the results. With that I can  
agree.

> [Martin Taylor 2010.04.10.11.43]

> 

> > The experimenter is not  
> > controlling for which member of the set of possible results will occur.

> SW: The issue isn’t the results. The issue is the interpreation of the
> 
> results. ‘Duallity’ is a reference in the brain used to control the
> 
> results.

BG: I assume by  
“duality” you are referring to the need to make use of probability  
amplitudes to explain (model) the outcome of the experiments. The only control  
that seems to me to be involved in this process is the control needed to carry  
out the calculations. No one that I know is controlling a perception of  
duality. Perhaps I miss your point.

> [From Rick Marken  
> (2010.04.10.1015)]

> 

> > The 2 slit experiment  
> > reveals physics to be a far more mature science than psychology.

> >

> SW: The 2 slit  
> experiments may be more mature, but when the 2 slit
> 
> experimenters put on their theorizing hats, they are forging a
> 
> reference that is built of perceptions that are only in their heads.
> 
> The interesting part of Gavin’s question is: how can the theorizer
> 
> use his knowledge of how he controlls his perceptions to help him
> 
> discover which of his references prevents him from percieving what
> 
> would be simple to percieve if the reference were different.

BG: Either you know  
something that the rest of us don’t or you are making an unsubstantiated claim.  
It is true that we see the world in terms of particles and waves and that these  
two representations are very different. The simplest “solution” to  
this “problem” is to simply say that light consists of particles  
called photons. When you want to predict how light will behave you must invoke  
a model that involves waves (probability amplitudes). The model, however, is  
not the the physical world. In the physical world there are only photons; there  
are no waves as far as we know.

Bruce

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/pct-and-the-2-slit-experiment/8346.md?page=2)