The only objective way out are hidden variables. — Raymond
So the guy is just right. Because you don't understand the problem and secretely project an objective collapse on nature. — Raymond
The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.
The process of collapse, say a superposition of a spin up spin down state, is induced by a measurement, but before someone actually sees the outcome, the whole is still in a superposition, like the cat and the poison in the covered cage of Schrödinger — Raymond
Maybe you should educate yourself first, before pointing at "authority" without understanding the subject. I too once thought a collapse is objective but the very Copenhagen interpretation gives the possibility to always maintain that nature is in a superposition until measured by us (in the many worlds interpretation there is no collapse at all). — Raymond
Objective collapse theory is equivalent to hidden variables. — Raymond
So again, the guy is right, and if you like there is authority claiming collapse is not caused by us, and there is authority claiming it is. We just don't know, by the very nature of superposition and their attachment with the observer. — Raymond
Yes there can and quantum physics is evidence of it. It doesn't need a deterministic substrate. You're still stuck in classical physics thinking which is your first error.There can't be something like pure chance, as QM implies, and which directs collapse. Chance needs a deterministic substrate. — Raymond
So you measure a spin direction, and he claims you are still in a superposition of two worlds, one in which you measure spin up, and one in which you measure spin down. The many world interpretation even backs him up on this. — Raymond
How do you know there is a collapse if you don't look? — Raymond
It's the observer that causes collapse. — Raymond
Again, the collapse happens at measurement — TerraHalcyon
Well according to this dude solipsism is true and we are solipsists in superposition. I don't know how right his argument is. — TerraHalcyon
It's clear from your writing you don't understand the subject, much like the guy in the Quora link. The appeal to authority works here because unless you have a degree in the subject — TerraHalcyon
How do you know? — Raymond
To put it differently, for TG (the/that guy) you are still in a superposition of observing up and down. Your observation causes a local split, but only when TG observes the superposition of you observing up and down, the global splits in two distinct states. — Raymond
Only when he observes you, from both the states with spin up and spin down, two new states will appear when TG observes you, one in which you have observed spin up and one in which you have observed spin down, no matter if the state it comes from contains up or down only. — Raymond
So you as well as him are always in superposition, and observing causes the superposition to live happily after observing but in separate worlds. — Raymond
He doesn't the deny the reality of roller-coasters, but he denies there are actually other people in the roller-coaster having the same experience. The guy in this polemic says there are other solipsists rolling along, so he's not a solipsist. — Raymond
Huh. So he's like Neo in the Matrix, if I understand correctly? — john27
Sort of, except unlike the matrix where there are other minds but in virtual bodies solipsism says one cannot know about the existence of other minds. — TerraHalcyon
Again it's not hidden variables but I'm getting tired of repeating myself to someone who doesn't get it. — TerraHalcyon
It's you who doesn't get it. Gnight! — Raymond
Your counterpoints are so off the mark, they’re not even wrong. They’re just ignorant of what they are attempting to address. You can’t even see that perception is reality (which is tautological) has to be the case. Your points miss the point and are pointless.
I will enumerate the perquisites that your belief system needs to accept in order to understand these concepts.
1: Consciousness is fundamental and all that exists.
You don’t believe it so you can’t understand any ramifications thereof.
2: Everything in physical reality is a construct of one’s mind. Created by consciousness and translated by the brain.
You can’t fathom such a concept which is antithesis of naïve realism and the basis of idealism.
3: Other minds in superposition are part of number 2 and constructed by each of us. You don’t understand number 2 and so therefore can’t understand 3.
My you is a lonely, insecure, p-zombie (can’t understand the analogy) who uses arrogance to cover his fears. My you likely has few if any friends who tolerate your abrasive, egotistical personality.
Your you is an entirely different construct but you don’t even realize that you have constructed the you you are so enamored of and that your me you are trying to disabuse is also your creation. At least I know I’ve created the p-zombie that is labeled Ian and is tilting at windmills.
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.