But verifiable experiments have been born from this sort of work. For example, tests of Bell's Inequalities came out of work in foundations and are important. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came out of Wheeler and Feynman's work in foundations. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The spontaneous collapse versions do make slightly different predictions and have been tested in some forms. I posted a link to those above. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark
Yes. That's the part of the Consciousness Causes Collapse metaphor that sounds like mind-over-matter magic. But, if we remember that Properties (attributes) are attributed*1 to a particle by the mind of the observer, the focus turns back onto the Attributor. So, the sudden change may be in the mind, not the matter, as different attributes*2 come to mind when possible properties are actualized by the experiment. That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. So, the quantum Magic may actually be a case of Mind over Mind insight (e.g. pattern recognition). :smile:Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness
Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1. — Gnomon
"if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". — Gnomon
I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark
Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. It describes aspects of our world. Our world includes consciousness. That doesn't mean there is a specific, direct connection between QM and consciousness.
That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon
I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Does witnessing an event (the role of observation) cause the event, or does the physical disturbance by experimental apparatus cause the noted change?The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark
You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate.That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon
We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true! — universeness
True. Although given the ways we've already found that life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects, I figure it will probably come to play some sort of role. Obviously life uses quantum phenomena in that all chemistry is quantum phenomena, but it seems likely that adaptations for molecule level cellular machinery taking advantage of non-classical effects will be something we continue to find. After all, live evolved in our real world, not the abstraction we call the "classical scale world," and if optimal solutions involve quantum effects then life could easily have chanced upon them over 4 billion years. — Count Timothy von Icarus
You already have neat little experiments like this: https://www.sciencealert.com/study-suggests-spins-of-brain-water-could-mean-our-minds-use-quantum-computation
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be
There has been a decent trickle of these, some related to how microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". — Gnomon
The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark
No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence.You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? — Gnomon
Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness
Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. Mass is a property and the mass of an electron is a constant, so it does not change, what am I failing to understand here? Is a snowball that gains mass as it rolls down a hill of snow, still the same snowball? I am not the same person as I was 50 years ago. Perhaps I am just not understanding, the significance in physics, of treating every electron as individual objects or treating each electron as the same 'properties' existing in many places. Would either 'treatment' significantly affect any major current theory in quantum or classical physics? The single electron theory bore no value at all, did it? — universeness
andIf an object is defined by its relations, then an object is actually continually becoming a different object; I am a different person when I'm in my dining room them when I'm in my living room, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The concern is generally that, if an object is nothing but its properties, and its properties change, then the object has become a different object. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I accept that like me, you are not a 'quantum scientist' and I further accept that you engage in a lot of 'philosophical guessing,' and that such is the strength (or lack of) behind your dalliances with theism and your enformation proposals.It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate. — Gnomon
I don't want to sound obtuse, but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? Does, or does not, experimental observation (looking + perturbing) have an empirical effect on the object of the experiment? As I said, I don't think "just looking" can cause a change in matter. But a quantum-scale scientific observation involves more than just passively seeing what happens. So here, I'll try to answer my own question.I'll say it again one more time and leave it at that. No... I won't say it again, I'll just copy my previous comment here:
The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark — T Clark
Do you require empirical evidence for a "philosophical thesis*1"? Most philosophical assertions are supported by argumentation, that you can accept or reject for personal reasons, but can't disprove empirically --- only by authority.No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness
but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? — Gnomon
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of utilizing instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire, which causes some of the air to escape, thereby changing the pressure to observe it. — Wikipedia - The Observer Effect
FWIW, here are some thoughts on the relation between Enformy (the natural tendency to create and transform material objects) and Energy. You won't find that term in any science books, because I coined it to express an underlying relationship that is more useful for philosophical reasoning than for empirical manipulation of matter. There's lots more where this came from, but it's not in the category of settled science. Again, it's not a factual "claim", but a philosophical conjecture about the role of Form in the world. Plato & Aristotle used that idea long before anyone had the modern concept of physical Energy. :smile:No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness
*1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (er, Enformy) :
#1 -- Enformy : Potential (P) for Causation/Change is finite but unbounded. EnFormAction is never lost, but merely transformed into Actual (A) material forms . (P = A)
#2 -- Entropy : Inputs are proportional to Outputs (ΔE = q + w)
#3 -- Origin : Initial state & Final state balance out (qualitatively — Gnomon
Your defensive skepticism missed the point. It's just an analogy.These are not the Laws of Thermodynamics, they're the Laws of Gnomodynamics. — T Clark
Your defensive skepticism missed the point. — Gnomon
It's just an analogy. — Gnomon
I apologize for offering you novel ideas that your background didn't prepare you to understand. But the scientific terminology I used, by analogy, did represent my unconventional meaning. So, it was not intended to mislead.That's why I commented. You shouldn't appropriate scientific terminology in a way that misrepresents it's meaning. — T Clark
I apologize for offering you novel ideas that your background didn't prepare you to understand. But the scientific terminology I used, by analogy, did represent my unconventional meaning. So, it was not intended to mislead. — Gnomon
I'm all done here. — T Clark
My apologies, where I said "the article explains some of them," above I meant to share this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/ — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.