”The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen." — khaled
Because theories that have it collapse are infinitely more complicated. — khaled
In all cases the universal wave function is "objectively real" as in it exists. — khaled
Not an experiment. But you manage to do it. I manage to do it in the same way. So does everyone I think. — khaled
do you think it's reasonable to believe that consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse? — khaled
As reasonable as believing there's some people that have a consciousness made of "expertise" in some way. — boethius
I said as reasonable — boethius
It's not an experiment, it's not science. It's pseudoscience with all the same trappings of other pseudosiences: plausible sounding reasoning, anecdotes, unfalsefiable claims.
I'm just not in denial about it. — boethius
As a belief you clearly find unreasonable since you call having it being "In denial" — khaled
Sure. But if one of them is unreasonable it makes the other unreasonable. — khaled
Is reasonable? — khaled
Nothing could be more ‘complicated’ that the idea that everything that happens, happens an infinite number of times in an infinite number of parallel worlds. And it does this, just to avoid the implications of the measurement problem. — Wayfarer
You will find that the idea that the observing subject is part of the result is not at all ‘fringe’, it’s the central philosophical issue. — Wayfarer
The Mental Universe — Wayfarer
Bernard D’Espagnat’s acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize. — Wayfarer
But it does mean that it’s the view of at least some physicists. — Wayfarer
If we did an experiment that showed that even without any conscious observers the wave would collapse anyways, — khaled
There is no such experiment proposed, even in principle. — boethius
By-the-by, no apparatus can count to infinity and so infinite worlds is pseudoscience — boethius
Basically: If we can prove that the eyes cause wave function collapse fully, then it's not consciousness doing it is it? Unless you want to then propose that eyes are conscious. — khaled
Why must we be able to count worlds for it to be science? It's not a real infinity anyways. — khaled
(And before you say it's not infinite, just near infinite there's so many: any finite number is totally miniscule compared to infinity; the largest number that can possibly be represented in the entire accessible universe using all available energy and material and building up the most compact way to represent the largest numbers in the axiomatic system of your choice; is a minuscule number incredibly close to zero when compared to infinity). — boethius
This does seem any different than just experimental apparatus causing wave function collapse, just eyes being apparatus. — boethius
(And before you say it's not infinite, just near infinite there's so many: any finite number is totally miniscule compared to infinity; the largest number that can possibly be represented in the entire accessible universe using all available energy and material and building up the most compact way to represent the largest numbers in the axiomatic system of your choice; is a minuscule number incredibly close to zero when compared to infinity). — boethius
Why must we be able to count worlds for it to be science? — khaled
If you collapse a wave function of an electron there is an infinite number of points where it can end up (with there being an infinite number of points between two points and all that). Does that make wave function collapse psuedoscience too?
What about particle decay? It is completely random, and there is an infinite number of times at which it can decay. No apparatus can measure all the possible times a particle can decay. — khaled
Yes. Which means it's not the consciousness doing it. If the wave was already collapsed by the time it made it through your eyes, before it got processed in any way by the brain then it's your eyes doing it. Not your mind. — khaled
Is "pure" mathematics, meaning, mathematics that does not apply to the world (via physics, for example), something invented or discovered? — Manuel
There was a time when the "consciousness style" copenhagen interpretation (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) was vogue but not anymore. — khaled
Numbers are, whatever else they might be, patterns or abstractions. — TheMadFool
Hey careful now. Patterns are regular - the Fibonacci sequence. But do the prime numbers form a pattern? I think not (although there’s this.) Anyway, that’s a philosophy of math subject, not a good (or bad) physics subject. — Wayfarer
That’s because it’s philosophically demanding and goes against the grain of realism, — Wayfarer
There is nothing in quantum mechanics itself that prevents, in principle, "pan super position" of just setting up the wave function of the whole universe and letting it evolve. If we do this for the big bang or any moment after the big bang, there is nothing in quantum mechanics that forces "observations" to collapse the universal wave function. — boethius
It can evolve in time in it's wavy form indefinitely. — boethius
What makes "apparatus" special is psychics is that we consciously observe the apparatus and so see definite states of the apparatus and not superimposition of states. — boethius
Given all this, it is as reasonable to believe consciousness collapses wave functions as some entropy threshold or the like. — boethius
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.