Calling something "nonsensical illogic" is not a logical argument. — ken2esq
Your close-minded rejection is the OPPOSITE of philosophy and logic. — ken2esq
In my view Wheeler and especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are the pinnacle of (logical) positivism. Hence we have these models that puts the human observing something in the center of everything. Because ...it's us humans making the observations.I think there is a grain of truth in this, but I emphasis 'grain'. And here moreso than many other places, a little learning is dangerous. But this 20-year-old article on physicist John Wheeler's 'participatory universe' can be interpreted to say something like that. — Wayfarer
Tim Maudlin: The Defeat of ReasonLogical positivism has been killed many times over by philosophers. But no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart, it arises unbidden in the minds of scientists. For if the content of a theory goes beyond what you can observe, then you can never, in principle, be sure that any theory is right. And that means there can be interminable arguments about which theory is right that cannot be settled by observation.
This, in a nutshell, is the central conundrum of quantum mechanics: how does the mathematical formalism used to represent a quantum system make contact with the world as given in experience? This is commonly called the measurement problem, although the name is misleading. It might better be called the where-in-the-theory-is-the-world-we-live-in problem.
In my view Wheeler and especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are the pinnacle of (logical) positivism. — ssu
When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function — JuanZu
The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only 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. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos
What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq
What happens when an observation is made is that those probabilities ‘collapse’ into a precise measurement. — Wayfarer
When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function
— JuanZu
Not according to Brian Greene.
The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only 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.
— Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos — Wayfarer
we are physically intervening... — JuanZu
Upon measurement one of these is determined to be be correct. No "collapse". But my analogy may be incorrect. — jgill
You say:
we are physically intervening...
— JuanZu
But Greene's quote seems to question that, doesn't it? — Wayfarer
What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq
What? Isn't a lab part of nature? — Lionino
When we need to calculate the voltage a heater/boiler must take, should we not treat the heater as a closed system because supposedly it is not natural? — Lionino
What energy is lost to entropy? Entropy and energy are different measurements. — Lionino
2 - closed or isolated system are not theories. There is no theory in physics where it says "there is a (true) closed system", physics does not make existential statements even though it relies on them. Open, closed, isolated system are abstract concepts used to specify the conditions of a system. You could replace those words by ΔE = 0, Δm > 0, Δm = 0, if it helps you solve the exercise faster. — Lionino
o? Your inability to see is not my problem. Tell me the illogic. What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq
Tell you what: Google Schroedinger's cat, read up on the concept of probability waves being intrinsic to reality. You seem to be bereft of basic science to claim probability waves are "magic." — ken2esq
There are energy loses, therefore the system is not truly closed. This is understood under the concept of efficiency. — Metaphysician Undercover
No system has 100% efficiency, therefore energy is always lost from a system. — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed and an isolated system. — Lionino
Whether a closed or isolated system are physically possible is irrelevant as it is a concept, not a theory, which, like in everything in physics, makes an approximation of reality. — Lionino
The inside of an average-sized black hole may be treated as a closed system when no matter is entering the event horizon, as the Hawking radiation emitted every second or even year is nothing compared to the billions of billions of tons of mass the BH has. — Lionino
They might or might not exist in real life. — Lionino
What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves?
— ken2esq
No-one ever observes a probability wave, because it’s a mathematical function that describes the distribution of probabilities. What happens when an observation is made is that those probabilities ‘collapse’ into a precise measurement. — Wayfarer
Saying when you look at a probability wave it collapses or when you observe a probability wave it collapses seems pretty irrelevant to my arguments. I would suggest you not get distracted by irrelevant semantics (relevant semantics are fine). — ken2esq
Not ambiguity, but uncertainty -- the uncertainty principle. So, with that, the Schrodinger's cat experiment doesn't deny the definite properties and doesn't deny space time. It is actually more like a critique of the very notion of the uncertainty principle, which, in all fairness, is a principle about us! -- the observer. And it doesn't purport to state that all possible states exist, rather only two states -- is the cat dead because of the poison, or is the cat alive because the poison didn't detonate.And that ambiguity arises from superposition. This principle suggests that particles exist in all possible states simultaneously until they are observed or measured.
This concept challenges classical notions of reality and determinism. In classical physics, objects have definite properties and states at all times. However, in quantum mechanics, entities like electrons or photons exist in a superposition of states, with probabilities for each state, until an observation "collapses" these possibilities into a single state.
Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter. — Wayfarer
And it doesn't purport to state that all possible states exist, rather only two states -- is the cat dead because of the poison, or is the cat alive because the poison didn't detonate. — L'éléphant
Perhaps the weirdest thing about the quantum world is that the notion of an object falls apart. Outside the world of molecules, atoms, and elementary particles, we have a very clear picture of an object as a thing we can behold. This applies to a door, a car, a planet, and a grain of sand. Moving to smaller things, the concept still holds for a cell, a virus, and a large biomolecule like DNA. But it is here, at the level of molecules and of distances shorter than a billionth of a meter or so, that the problems begin. If we keep moving to smaller and smaller distances, and continue to ask what are the objects that exist, quantum physics kicks in. “Things” become fuzzy, their shapes unclear and their boundaries uncertain. Objects evaporate into clouds, as elusive in their contours as words are to describe them. We can still think of crystals as being made of atoms arranged in certain patterns — like our familiar kitchen salt, which is made of cubic lattices of sodium and chlorine atoms.
Hahaha. :grin:Stephen Hawking said 'whenever I hear of Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun.' — Wayfarer
But isn't that exactly what you presented in your previous post?My take on that thought-experiment is that it was a rather sarcastic model to try and communicate the philosophical conundrums thrown up by this issue. It was kind of a joke albeit with serious implications. — Wayfarer
The conclusory "that's not a logical argument" skips all the NECESSARY steps to support your conclusion. — ken2esq
EVERY argument which has an opponent necessarily is viewed as an ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT by the opponent — ken2esq
Christopher Hutchins debating theists...he did not think they had a logical argument. Did he therefore say it was impossible to address their argume — ken2esq
To claim you are free from that because the other side is somehow a priori illogical is just nonsense. — ken2esq
I REALLY want to hear how you will rationalize stating such an obviously false position. Will you blame drugs? exhaustion? brain fart? being under the control of a super-conscious organization that does not want you to see the logic of my arguments and so puts really really stupid words in your mouth? (I'm partial to the last, by the way, do not blame you but that which controls you.) — ken2esq
Reality is a dance / battle between two opposing forces, a consciousness that, by observing waves of probability, collapses them into particular reality. This is the process of creation. — ken2esq
On the other side is Wave Consciousness, which seeks to turn particular reality into waves, I think by blocking/destroying/hemming in the observations of the Particle Consciousness. — ken2esq
his means that all the far galaxies we observe through telescopes actually did not exist until we peered through those telescopes and then collapsed the waves of probability out there into what we expected to see. Strangely, this means scientists often, if not always, create rather than discover. — ken2esq
Women embody the wave consciousness and men embody the particle consciousness, at least primarily. — ken2esq
If anyone has logic, reason, evidence, scientific studies, that refute this, I am happy to reconsider / revise. — ken2esq
Life arises in a quadrant of space as a fragment of God creating the universe in that area of space, by observing and choosing what to bring about in existence there, and once that process is complete in that area, the life is now obsolete, so it dies off and returns its energy to God, or perhaps we have eternal souls that are then reincarnated elsewhere in the universe where we can do more creation, as alien life forms on a distant world where observation is still needed to create the local reality. — ken2esq
I don't understand why we are so torn apart because subparticles exist. — L'éléphant
The way you show I did NOT present a logical argument is by showing how it is illogical, by dismantling the actually assumptions and or extrapolations therefrom. — ken2esq
EVERY argument which has an opponent necessarily is viewed as an ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT by the opponent — ken2esq
You position is so absurd... — ken2esq
This is literally the HEART and MEAT of philosophical debate, dismantling -- in detail, with exactitude -- why the opposing view IS illogical. To claim you are free from that because the other side is somehow a priori illogical is just nonsense. — ken2esq
Will you blame drugs? exhaustion? brain fart? being under the control of a super-conscious organization that does not want you to see the logic of my arguments and so puts really really stupid words in your mouth? (I'm partial to the last, by the way, do not blame you but that which controls you.) — ken2esq
Didn't you just say that a closed system is a concept which "makes an approximation of reality"? Why would you now say that a black hole ought to be treated in this way? — Metaphysician Undercover
I am ready for a descriptive explanation, if you care to give it a go. — Metaphysician Undercover
Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter.
15h — Wayfarer
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.