Neils Bohr won! — TheMadFool
Again with the conspiracy theories. — khaled
The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind … To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. As is often the way with crude statements, I shall have to explain that by "mind" I do not exactly mean mind and by "stuff" I do not at all mean stuff. Still that is about as near as we can get to the idea in a simple phrase. The mind-stuff of the world is something more general than our individual conscious minds; but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to feelings in our consciousness … Having granted this, the mental activity of the part of world constituting ourselves occasions no great surprise; it is known to us by direct self-knowledge, and we do not explain it away as something other than we know it to be — or rather, it knows itself to be. — Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. — Max Planck
I watched the video and although much of it was above my paygrade, I could get some idea of what the speaker had to say.
It seems that the Bell inequality is an equation inequality that claims that a certain probability must be greater than or equal to another probability IFF there are hidden variables which seems to be just another way of saying quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense something is missing from it in its present form.
Experimental evidence seems to violate the Bell inequality which implies that there are no hidden variables so to speak and quantum mechanics is complete.
Neils Bohr won! — TheMadFool
And what, pray tell, is poisonous or conspiratorial about philosophical idealism? — Wayfarer
Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. — Wayfarer
Of course there are issues of interpretation, but many physicists since the early 20th c have evinced idealist leanings, not least Heisenberg — Wayfarer
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. — Max Planck
But you did say that the von Neumann interpretation was avoided because of “big philosophical implications”. Sounds exactly like a conspiracy theory. — khaled
Wave functions collapse in the absence of anything conscious to collapse them. — khaled
So what you're arguing is that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in quantum physics actually doesn't exist. — Wayfarer
Largely discarded, by whom? — Wayfarer
Where is the evidence for that? — Wayfarer
What are the alternatives? — Wayfarer
So what you're arguing is that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in quantum physics actually doesn't exist.
— Wayfarer
So you think the alternatives are: Either consciousness is the only thing capable of causing wave functions collapse, or the observer problem doesn’t exist?
Please explain to me why you think those are the only two alternatives. — khaled
The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide as well as a powerful explanatory framework in certain specific situations. However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impressions that uncertainty arises when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement
I think that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in physics is precisely due to the fact that 'the act of observation' has a material effect on the outcome of experiments in quantum physics. — Wayfarer
It can be argued that this act of observation can be made by an apparatus, not a person, but that begs the question of why the apparatus existed in the first place — Wayfarer
and also whether anything it measures or registers constitutes information until it is interpreted by those who made the apparatus. — Wayfarer
and whether it exists uninterpreted can only ever be an assumption. — Wayfarer
What is referred to as the wave-function collapse is simply that, prior to the act of measurement or registration, there is not a particle at a definite location with definite properties — Wayfarer
The 'Copenhagen intepretation' is thought of as 'weird' is simply because of the fact that 'the observer' has a role at all. — Wayfarer
So a lot of scientifically-inclined people can't deal with the requirement to include the observer. This is not 'a conspiracy theory', it has sound philosophical basis. — Wayfarer
Which would result in there being no macro objects at all. If that’s the case consciousness wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. So no, collapse has to happen without consciousness in order for consciousness to even exist. — khaled
So please stop saying I'm 'peddling conspiracy theories', it's just insulting. — Wayfarer
what happens is that we receive stimuli through the sense-gates and we interpret these stimuli to 'create' a world — Wayfarer
And evolutionary theory, being a form of naturalism, takes the reality of nature for granted. Whereas 'the nature of reality' is being called into question by the discoveries of physics. — Wayfarer
Your theory, which is presumably scientifically realist neo-Darwinian evolution, can't accomodate the radical implications of physics. — Wayfarer
what I'm saying is not fringe conspiracy theory, but it is deeply challenging for the taken-for-granted realism that a lot of people hold. — Wayfarer
a lot of physicists don't bother with any of this, nor do they need to. They can do physics, even wildly advanced speculative physics, without engaging with this philosophical question — Wayfarer
Now you think, that what’s collapsing the wave is us seeing the results of the measurement. Ok. Attach a measuring device on the slits. Next, make a simple AI that can distinguish between the 2 stripe pattern and an interference pattern. If the interference pattern is seen, make the machine dispense a cookie. If a 2 stripe pattern is seen, no cookie. Now run the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser without looking at anything. You will find that there are no cookies waiting for you :sad:. In other words, the measuring device was enough to collapse the wave function so a 2 stripe pattern is detected, and no cookies are dispensed. — khaled
Yes but there is still a "world" underneath our perception of the world. The source of the stimuli. An objective world, is what I'll call it. That's what physics tries to capture. Can we agree there? — khaled
Not true. Not even for MWI. MWI is the theory that ALL the possibilities happen. As in a universe where the wave function collapsed to A is created and another universe where the wave function was collapsed to B is created, and so on.... — khaled
False. If you set up a measuring machine and no one looks at the results, the wave function will still collapse. — khaled
I think that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in physics is precisely due to the fact that 'the act of observation' has a material effect on the outcome of experiments in quantum physics. This is the origin of the controversy, and the reason there is a problem of interpretation. They don't necessarily refer to consciousness but to the act of observation or registration or measurement. It can be argued that this act of observation can be made by an apparatus, not a person, but that begs the question of why the apparatus existed in the first place, and also whether anything it measures or registers constitutes information until it is interpreted by those who made the apparatus. If you say it does, it simply kicks the can down that road, so to speak; ultimately the information is interpreted by a human being, and whether it exists uninterpreted can only ever be an assumption. — Wayfarer
This is the problem! That's exactly the point! Is its real nature particle-like or wave-like. Well, it depends on which experiment you conduct. Some will give you wave, some particle. 'But what is it really?'
Silence. — Wayfarer
‘ What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning,’ said Heisenberg. See the connection with Kant? That we know phenomena, what appears to us. What is it really, though? — Wayfarer
You're saying the MWI solves the problem we're talking about, but somehow the problem doesn't even exist for the proposed solution you are arguing about that "consciousness collapses wave functions". — boethius
which, before we look, is entirely coherent to believe the measuring apparatus is in the superimposition of the different measurement outcomes — boethius
Adding a "measuring apparatus" in the box with Schrödinger's cat, doesn't change the thought experiment. — boethius
The question is what state these measuring devices are in before we look at them? — boethius
By "Objective world" I didn't mean a well defined one — khaled
If no one looks at the sun, does the world suddenly go dark? We can test that. And no it won't. Because the sun stays there even when no one is looking at it. Same can be said of the moon and the behavior of waves (in the ocean). — khaled
But you (not you in particular) have an object-world, a real-world, in the back of your mind all the time. It’s assumed, inviolable, unchallengeable. You’re not engaging with philosophy until you challenge this innate realism — Wayfarer
Objects and subjects arise together, you don’t have one without the other. — Wayfarer
We wanted to find a Democritean atom - something that was utterly real, a literal atom, a fundamentally real object. Instead, we get an equation which describes a range of possibilities, and it takes a measurement to pull the real rabbit out of the statistical hat. Seems suspiciously like magic. Nobody really knows if the equation is objectively real and the ‘collapse’ literally occurs. That’s part of the problem!
Sure. But you seem incredibly sure that the collapse literally occurs, moreover as a result of our conscious awareness.
And the measurement, again, doesn't have to be done by a conscious agent. I've given countless possible experiments now. It simply is not the case that without a conscious agent seeing the results, that the collapse doesn't occur. I'll repeat what I said to boethius:
— Wayfarer
We can know whether or not a quantum wave is collapsed or not without observing it, by observing its consequences in each case (collapsed or uncollapsed). — khaled
That’s why those arguments among the pioneers of this subject were so intense and vehement. Heisenberg recalled being literally reduced to tears. Seriously, do some more reading. That’s all for now. — Wayfarer
1- Minds require brains
2- Brains require resolved quantum states
3- Therefore minds require resolved quantum states — khaled
False. That's precisely the point. There are CONSEQUENCES to the wave not being resolved while we're not looking at it. Attach a measuring apparatus to a double slit experiment. Then have an AI recognize whether or not an interference or striped pattern is produced, and connect the AI to a cookie dispenser. If a striped pattern is produced, no cookie, if an interference pattern is produced, dispense a cookie. Start the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser. You will find no cookie. — khaled
this is why there is no interference pattern even if you do not "look" at your experiment until the end. — boethius
Interference patterns disappear, not because of wave collapse, but because of running a different experiment, where phase is not preserved through both slits; and without the same phase going through both slits, the interference pattern does not emerge — boethius
However, if you put your experiment in the box with Schrödinger's cat, how is it described quantum mechanically? The particles, the detectors, the AI are all in superpositions of the different possibilities of when you open the box. — boethius
If we look at the math of quantum physics, there is no logical inconsistency in just letting the wave function propagate indefinitely without any "collapses". — 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.