If one describes the whole universe this way, there is nothing logically inconsistent within the math of saying the whole 4 dimensions (or however many dimensions you have in your system) physically exist (in some substance intuition sense) as one 4 dimensional block. — boethius
Within the math of classical mechanics.
In Quantum mechanics it is very much inconsistent. Because there are 2 alternatives in quantum mechanics: — khaled
Having multiple interpretations of things does not create inconsistencies. — boethius
However, for those curious, the block universe interpretation is as easy in quantum mechanics as classical mechanics. There are just many more paths through the block associated with any particle — boethius
If we want to add "wave function collapse" (which the point of contemplating the "cosmic wave function" is that we don't need to ever add a wave function collapse, if we remove the hypothesis of conscious observers that see definite things) then the many potential world lines associated with a particle collapse in the block to the, if not one location, then "smaller region" anytime the wave function collapses in this block universe. — boethius
Again, the only reason to postulate "time" as some sort of changing singular experience in our quantum block universe is if we want to contemplate the idea that some of the "particle world lines" represent a conscious being that experiences "time" as some changing singular experience. However, if we had no observers in our quantum block universe there is nothing in the math that would tell us time is some special thing as we understand time to be in our experience. — boethius
Sigh. Read the whole comment please. I show why one of the interpretations (the one we happen to be discussing) is inconsistent with that. — khaled
Great. Now the question becomes, do we need a conscious observer for this to happen, or can it happen on its own. — khaled
There is no inconsistency with MWI. — boethius
This is what I am explaining; the only for us to resolve this question scientifically, is to setup an experiment and then for us to both become conscious or the result. — boethius
what is "really in the box" when we aren't looking is a unfalsefiable claim, as to falsefy a claim about what's "really in the box" we need to open the box and look — boethius
Sort of. But we weren’t talking about MWI. We were talking about collapse and what causes it. There is an inconsistency between “multiple world lines” and “collapse”. — khaled
No we don’t. We need to become conscious of the consequences of the result. Such as cookie or no cookie. Would you call that “becoming conscious of the result”? — khaled
We can definitely tell the state of the cat. Without observing the cat. — khaled
What exactly is a "quantum fork"? — SolarWind
Only within a certain stochastic process governed by entropy, surely? — Shawn
Usually in these discussions what I am calling "a fork in the road" is called a branch in a graph of possible state changes.
What it means is simply that when a "wave collapses" and a value previously represented by a range of possibilities becomes one possibility ... — boethius
However, splitting into different possibilities again involves the definition of measurement, which is precisely what is to be avoided in the MWI. If I have defined what exactly a measurement is, then I can simply choose the Copenhagen Interpretation. The MWI would then be superfluous. — SolarWind
But, entropy makes everything quite a bit more deterministic. Whilst QM remains elusive for high variance in temperature gradients for atomic elements locally, and even non-locally, yea? — Shawn
The "measurement problem" is not a problem scientists who measure things face, ... — boethius
What I contend the mathematician is unlikely to do is add the postulate that the probabilities "collapsed" in some sense on the way to the final answer, but rather would just plug in the provided parameters and constraints (i.e. the fundamental constants and whatever values for initial conditions we provide) into the equations and solve for the question. — boethius
There's no wave collapse in MWI, as the idea there is all possibilities really exist in some physical definite state and new universes pop into existence every time there is a quantum fork in the road. — boethius
"Wave collapse" is the idea there's only one universe that doesn't split at every quantum fork in the road, but the possibilities collapse into one path going forward. — boethius
It's just in one interpretation if we go "forward in time" with our equations we see a range of possibilities and "predict" one of those possibilities will "actually happen" for observers at that moment in time. — boethius
in MWI we go forward in time with our equations and we see the same possibilities but assert every possibility corresponds to a real "universe" (which should really be called "subverse" to the real universe of all these possibilities actually existing). — boethius
This is just what "science" means. If you setup your cookie experiment but never look at the results, but assure me the cookie is definitely either there or it isn't even if you don't look, I'll ask "how do you know". The only way for you to "know" is to go and check, but you're claiming to know even if you don't check. — boethius
Again, address this: Consciousness evolved yes? In order for that to happen we needed to have collapsed, well defined molecules at least yes? And eventually after enough time a conscious thing evolved from these molecules yes?
Then how can consciousness be a requirement for wave function collapse? If it was, it would’ve never evolved. — khaled
Again, address this: Consciousness evolved yes? In order for that to happen we needed to have collapsed, well defined molecules at least yes? And eventually after enough time a conscious thing evolved from these molecules yes?
Then how can consciousness be a requirement for wave function collapse? If it was, it would’ve never evolved. — khaled
According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements.
It is wrong to think that the past is "already existing" in all detail. The "past" is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. By deciding what questions our quantum registering equipment shall put in the present we have an undeniable choice in what we have the right to say about the past.
What we call reality consists of a few iron posts of observation between which we fill in by an elaborate paper maché constructions of imagination and theory.
I think the so-called 'wave function collapse' is not necessarily something that happens objectively - it's not a literal change of state. It's not that matter exists in some non-collapsed state, waiting for someone to measure it, so it can collapse and thereby begin to exist. — Wayfarer
The issue arises from reconciling the wave-function equation, which describes the state of the object before it is measured, with the act of measurement — Wayfarer
What we call reality consists of a few iron posts of observation between which we fill in by an elaborate paper maché constructions of imagination and theory.
But I think the so-called 'wave function collapse' is not necessarily something that happens objectively - it's not a literal change of state. It's not that matter exists in some non-collapsed state, waiting for someone to measure it, so it can collapse and thereby begin to exist. The issue arises from reconciling the wave-function equation, which describes the state of the object before it is measured, with the act of measurement. — Wayfarer
Because after all, the matter already exists. — khaled
If that’s the case how come there are direct physical consequences to both, over what we can just say. For example, if you do the double slit experiment on a screen that begins to burn when hit by enough electrons, the screen would burn in whichever pattern is produced, either 2 stripe or interference pattern. There is a real consequence here. We can check the screen after to find out which pattern “really happened” more than just which pattern “we can say happened” — khaled
Maybe I’m talking out of my ass — khaled
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynmann
How would an anti realist explain why the particle acts differently when collapsed vs uncollapsed? — khaled
As Baggott quotes Bohr at 29:30, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is." It is just the book-keeping device that is adjusted ("collapses") when an observation is made - but there is no physical collapse implied. — Andrew M
How would an anti realist explain why the particle acts differently when collapsed vs uncollapsed? In the double slit experiment for example. — khaled
If all it was was a book keeping device for our own sakes, then you’d expect the electrons to act the same way collapsed or uncollapsed no? — khaled
That the Copenhagen interpretation is anti realist is news to me. I’m curious where you got that? — khaled
Reality itself is not denied, but is beyond our ken. — Andrew M
“Really exist in some physical definite state” = collapse. — khaled
Correct. And MWI is the idea that this is what happens, for each possible universe. Again, you have each possible single path block, not a single multi path block (though that’s what you get if you were to superimpose all the blocks on each other) — khaled
So a single path, for every possible path a world. — khaled
No the point is this isn’t the “result” of the experiment. The variable we want to examine is whether or not the wave function can collapse without our conscious interference. If we get a cookie, where was the conscious interference? We definitely didn’t measure which slit the electron went through. And we didn’t interpret the results on the screen. All that was done by things that aren’t conscious. Yet in the end, when we look at the cookie dispenser, it won’t be “in a superposition of dispensing and not dispensing a cookie” it will either dispense or not dispense a cookie. Based on that we can know whether or not collapse happened without measuring which slit the electrons are going through. That’s the point. Same with the cat. All you’d need is a cookie dispenser there too to know specifically whether or not the cat is alive without observing the cat, just the dispenser.
And, again, address the historical argument: — khaled
Again, address this: Consciousness evolved yes? In order for that to happen we needed to have collapsed, well defined molecules at least yes? And eventually after enough time a conscious thing evolved from these molecules yes?
Then how can consciousness be a requirement for wave function collapse? If it was, it would’ve never evolved. — khaled
Again, you do not understand my point nor the mathematics of quantum mechanics. — boethius
The only way to make sense of this is to say the electron does not "move" in a classical sense between A and B and when we look we find where it "really is" but rather the electron somehow co-exists in some sense in both regions, but when we look to find the electron in region A, then somehow it's "existence" in region B disappears. — boethius
This is what happens mathematically, and "collapsing the wave of probabilities" to the new reality, is a sensical way to describe the mathematical process of updating a model with new information — boethius
such as simply stating first wave collapsing at some threshold of consciousness or something along those lines — boethius
It is not the case that when the wave functions "collapses" that a particle is then considered to have taken a definite path — boethius
evolution happens in every possibility, and then collapses to the first possibility of consciousness — boethius
but, as a Kantian, it's not really surprising that whatever we can say of the "noumena" always remains fundamentally speculative anyways — 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.