Originally Posted by
sourcejedi
That is one freaky experiment :-). I read it a while back in the New Scientist.
I'm not sure that's a useful way to look at it though. The experiment works the same whether it's a scientist choosing how to make the observation, or an automatic coin flipper. I think the experiment shows us how the universe works, not how our experiences relate to reality.
My problem with "experience is only what we are expecting" is that it requires a high level of solipsism. Ultimately you can only rely on your own experiences, but my personal experience is that there's a high degree of objective reality. And once I question that, it's difficult to discuss - well, anything. In particular though, if you are a figment of my imagination, or a product of my expectations, how can I discuss that fact with you?
For example, I might try to argue that if you were right, I should see catastrophic reality distortions caused by people in altered states of consciousness (dreaming, under the influence, fever-struck, tired), young children who don't know what to expect, people with mental illness. But that wouldn't be a valid argument - if you're right, then I don't see reality distortions because I don't expect them. When I'm in an altered state of consciousness, my reality would be distorted; when I return to a normal waking state, I would force my reality back to normal. It's good mental exercise, but surely if you're being solipsistic it's more natural to deny reality altogether?
Also, it seems like a contradiction in terms to collect evidence for solipsism by considering the results of a physics experiment, especially when it's not an experiment you've done yourself.