I know this post is long, but take the time to read it completely. If I'm right about it (and what little evidence I have is compelling) it could revelutionize your life, making you never depend on luck again.
So suppose we live in a multiverse with an infinite abount of universes in it. Every time something happens due to chance, the universe branches off, making two identical universes. In one universe it did happen, in the other it didn't happen. Because this happens so often, the number of universes is practically infinite.
The point is that no matter how unlikely something is, if it is possible, there is a universe in which it happens (actually an infinite number of them because they multiply so quickly).
What determines which universe you move into? (The one where it did happen or the one where it did not?) Random chance was my first guess, but now I've realized the truth.
You'll move into whichever universe in which it happens the way you, deep down, believe it will. Effectively, this means you can control anything around you if you can honestly believe it will happen. This sounds preposterous, but remember, you're not changing the universe; it is already there: you're just choosing which branch of the universe to move along to.
When I say you have to believe it deep down, I don't mean just intilectual belief. You have to convince your subconcious (and perhaps something even deeper) that it will happen. For example, I could tell myself that I believe that $100,000 will suddenly appear on the desk in front of me, but would be difficult for me to truely convince myself that such an unlikely thing WILL happen. Even though there is an infinite amount of universes in which that did happen, I didn't really believe it would, so I chose a universe in which it didn't.
Perhaps you've noticed this already. Have you ever said anything like 'I knew it' or 'I told you so'? In both cases, what you deep down expected to happen happened. (Something bad happening to you, and something bad happening to someone else, respectively.) Have you ever been told to 'trust your instincts'? In reality, what that means is that you identify what you expect to happen deep down, and conciously expect it to happen as well.
Nice theory, right, but what if it doesn't actually work? The scary part is that it does work. (At least as far as I've tested it at this point.)
My examples:
1: I convinced myself that my truck's a/c (which has been dead for weeks) would heal itself and run perfectly next time I cranked it up. When I cranked the truck up, the air ran, but weakly. I then realized that deep down, that was what I expected would happen. Still, that was the first time the a/c has worked in almost a month!
2: On the way to school, I worked to convince myself that the price of gas would go down from 3.09 to 2.99. When I got to the station, it was 3.08. When I got to the pump, it was 3.07 (since when is the price on the sign different from the price on the pump?). I realized I hadn't really convinced myself that it would go down that far. Still, what are the chances that the price would go down? I used to be suprised when it meerly held steady for a while; the price going down is nearly unheard-of. What are the chances that it would go down on the very day I convinced myself it would go down?
3 (not finished yet): I'm working on convincing myself that I will unexpectedly get a $50 bill. So far this has not happened, but I've only been working on it a few hours, and it is difficult to convince myself that it will actually happen.
So, in conclusion, it is correct that a little faith can move mountains. I encourage you to try this technique yourself and give me the results. I'll post here again later with updates on whether my experiments are working. (2 out of 2 so far!)
One way I try to convince my subconcious that unlikely things will happen:
1: Visualize the goal. Form a mental picture of it.
2: Write it down many (I use 15) times in a row.
3: Use a format like this when writing: I, ocalhoun, will unexpectedly get a $50 bill.
*A mistake you could make using this method:
-Saying you want something. "I, ocalhoun, want a $50 bill" Has already happened; I already want a $50 bill.
To my surprise I just experienced that your theory is not as unlikely as it reads. Though I'm still quite sceptic I noticed that I donated $5 to you.
OK, I must admit that it's not quite $50 - though it somewhere has the same ring. And, too, that they are Frih$s. Nevertheless - frighteningly or reassuringly almost equal to your price-of-gas-experience...
Good luck hopping from universe to universe!
PS: Is it possible to get back to a universe after you've left it? Seems philosophically excluded. Just as there is vitually no chance that someone else arrives at the same universe as you! They must be all one-person universes, hence the infinite numbers. The other persons just seem to be there, weird isn't it? From whichever universe you are now: please try to respond back to this one - or I'll never know what happened next! Sorry - on hindsight: you'll have to respond into the universe that I hopped into, the number of hops itself will already be near infinite once you read this, I'm afraid... I hope my hoping will be sufficient!
I don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't help laughing at your posts. You seem like one day you might be a genius if only you researched into the mechanics of the human brain.
Number 1. Your examples were very stupid. Not only are they terrible, unepic and flimsy, but you seem exhibit this behavior: Lets make an ordinary occurence into something magical, so either way I win!
Lets go back to this (flimsy) sentence "I convinced myself that my truck's a/c (which has been dead for weeks) would heal itself and run perfectly next time I cranked it up. When I cranked the truck up, the air ran, but weakly. I then realized that deep down, that was what I expected would happen. Still, that was the first time the a/c has worked in almost a month! "
But guess what? If the a/c had not worked, you would have said "I deep down did not have enough faith that it would." If the the a/c worked as you predicted, you would say "I had enough faith that it did so it did." (Praying to a milk jug)
Secondly, the human brain is nothing more than a complex organic computer. If you want to say computers have free will, then so do we. Brains are so complex time goes really slow in them so we are conscious. But "we" are just the system that chooses which decisions to make.
However, they may yet be some usefullness of your theory.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| You'll move into whichever universe in which it happens the way you, deep down, believe it will. Effectively, this means you can control anything around you if you can honestly believe it will happen. This sounds preposterous, but remember, you're not changing the universe; it is already there: you're just choosing which branch of the universe to move along to. |
You will have to explain how you came to this conclusion, given the fact that no other physical phenomenon ever observed succumbs to will alone. You cannot redirect the path of a projectile by "wanting" it to land somewhere else, can you? Seems to make all of science rather a joke, doesn't it?
But isn't that precisely what you're suggesting? When a projectile is launched, according to the many universes hypothesis, an infinite number of universes spawn, each with the projectile landing in one of it's infinite potential landing zones. According to you, you can functionally influence where it lands simply by believing, because if you really really believe, you will be "shifted" to that universe where it lands where you want.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Perhaps you've noticed this already. Have you ever said anything like 'I knew it' or 'I told you so'? In both cases, what you deep down expected to happen happened. (Something bad happening to you, and something bad happening to someone else, respectively.) Have you ever been told to 'trust your instincts'? In reality, what that means is that you identify what you expect to happen deep down, and conciously expect it to happen as well. |
EanofAthenasPrime has described in rough terms what the flaw in your logic is, but i can go a step further by giving it a name. Or rather names. Because you are falling victim to a number of cognitive biases and logical fallacies in your analysis. Here are just a few and short descriptions of how they pop up un your analysis, feel free to look them up for more details:
Cognitive biases
Observer-expectence bias: Even though gas prices frequently fluctuate (and despite your claim, they do go down just as often as they go up), you interpret the downward change as evidence - ignoring the known fact that it changes often.
Confirmation bias: Reading both failures and successes as evidence, as EanofAthenasPrime explained with the a/c example.
Attention specificity bias: Focussing only on your "desires" as the possible cause for the events, and ignoring all the other possibilities (like gas price fluctuations).
Clustering bias: Seeing patterns where only randomness exists.
Logical fallacies
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The gas price dropped after you wanted it to, therefore it must have been because you wanted it to.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy: You decide whether or not you had enough hope after the hoping succeeds or fails.
And of course, many more.
We - humanity - have been studying experimentation for hundreds of years, and we have developed ways to properly create hypotheses and test them to avoid the string of errors you have committed. If you are the least bit serious about trying to determine some new truth about the universe, wouldn't it be wise to learn how to properly do that? Rather than making these really silly mistakes in methodology? Read up on proper design of hypotheses and experiments. It will help.
i could write pages more on what's wrong with your hypothesis - and i mean fundamentally wrong with it, not just procedural errors you made while thinking it up or "testing" it. But i'm not going to bother. Why? Because you couldn't be arsed to properly design your hypothesis, or test it, before publishing it, it doesn't really warrant a formal critique. Read up on proper design of hypotheses and experiments, and try again - then i'll take a serious look at it, if you care.yeah man we should form a team destroying people's hypothesis. Like, I am only in 11th grade and you probably went to college lol. Just wondering...what is your IQ? Mine is like 141
i have no interest in destroying people's ideas. The brain is like any other part of the body, it needs to be exercised to grow strong. Thinking is like any other skill, you have to practice it to be good at it. What i do is teach people to use their brains and think properly.
Most people believe that thinking is just something that anyone except an idiot can do naturally, but that's simply not true. Thinking is a difficult art that has to be taught and practiced. Not even one in a thousand people gets it right most of the time. Hell, even the greatest minds in the world screw up from time to time.
It breaks my heart to see sincere people waste days, weeks, months, years... sometimes even their entire lives... on ideas that are so easily shown to be the product of flawed thinking. And as long as people are wasting so much time on bad ideas, there are fewer good ideas being thought up. What i try to do is educate people about proper thinking techniques. When i see them making a mistake, i point it out, in the hopes that they will learn from the mistake so that the next time they think up an idea it will be a more solid one. Nine times out of ten, all i get out of it is being called an ******. But at least i tried.
However, once in a blue moon, someone will actually learn something about the proper way to think. And every time that happens, it increases the number of good ideas in the world, and creates that much less bad ideas for people to waste their lives on.
Is ocalhoun's hypothesis right or wrong? i don't know. All i know is that it is based on flawed thinking. If the flawed thinking is corrected, maybe it won't even change the result - but at least in that case, now you would have a valid reason to be confident of the hypothesis.
Lol man I hope to one day be as cool as you. Anyways I said "joining a team destroying people's hypothesis's" as a joke, but yeah what you say is good.
Anyway's whats wrong with finding flaws with hypothesises? It is the only way to promote flawlessness
Ocalhoun, I found your post very interesting and thought provoking. What I believe you are describing is the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics. You hit on an interesting point, and that is, why - if there are many worlds - do we only ever perceive one instead of many. You are absolutely right that the conventional answer is that they are random.
The many world's interpretation is only one of several competing theories. For example, Boehmian mechanics predicts exactly the same outcomes, but it is a deterministic theory. The standard interpretation, called the Copenhagen interpretation, is based on just one world with probabilistic results. Ask your physics teacher, who can hopefully spark more interest! It's really fascinating, and the answer at the moment is that we really don't understand measurement.
I think you are going to have a hard time isolating your experiment from external biases.
Even if you did manage to do the experiment and get a positive result, you will never be able to convince anyone else that it is true... since they will only ever experience their own universe, based on what they believe. Indi for example, will experience a universe where even if he tests your hypothesis he will get a negative result, since that is his assumption.
| Indi wrote: |
| You will have to explain how you came to this conclusion, given the fact that no other physical phenomenon ever observed succumbs to will alone. |
In fact, that consciousness is intimately connected reality is an idea which was introduced by some of the great scientists this century - Heisenberg, Von Neumann, Wigner and London. To quote Heisenberg:
| Quote: |
| Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible. |
Or d'Espagnat:
| Quote: |
| The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment. |
The answer which Ocalhoun seems to be persuing, and correctly so from a scientific point of view, is that they should perform the experiment to test their hypothesis. Knocking something before it is tested is the opposite of science. Of course, I also don't think that the experiment will be successful, but having not done it myself, I have no basis for saying that.
| Quote: |
| You cannot redirect the path of a projectile by "wanting" it to land somewhere else, can you? Seems to make all of science rather a joke, doesn't it? |
There have been several changes in the past century which made all of science up to that point a joke. For example, the development of quantum mechanics, and of special and general relativity. Another famous example being Poisson's spot. The way to test theories is not to declare them in contradiction with science, but to test them in experiment.
It seems a joke that when we consciously observe a particle it behaves in a different way than when we do not observe it. However, when we perform the experiment, that is precisely what we do see.
http://hasylab.desy.de/news__events/research_highlights/archive/molecular_double_slit_experiment/index_eng.html
So, in your example of a projectile, if you watch a projectile it will land in a different position than if you do not observe it. This has been proved in the which-way double slit experiment using electrons, photons and now molecules. Measurement can be viewed as an update of an observer's belief about the measured observable. In this sense, a conscious observer certainly does change the outcome of experiment.
WARNING - what follows is an example of craziness! Do not under any circumstances test it. IMHO this demonstrates the anti-scientific nature of the anthropic principle, especially when used in conjunction with many-worlds. Taken to an extreme, if you use both the anthropic principle and the many world's interpretation then you start talking crazy talk:
| Quote: |
| In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered depending on the decay of some radioactive atom. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into one world in which he lives and another world in which he dies. After many runs of the experiment, there will be many worlds. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the surviving copies of the physicist will notice that he never seems to die. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide
Another interesting thought experiment is that of Wigner's friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigners_friend
If these things interest you, you should have a go at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
In my view quantum measurement can be described as a type of decoherence process. This provides, I think, a much more satisfying picture of what's going on. Good luck in your experiment, and if you do get measurement figured out, then please tell the rest of us! | nopaniers wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | You will have to explain how you came to this conclusion, given the fact that no other physical phenomenon ever observed succumbs to will alone. |
In fact, that consciousness creates reality is an idea which was introduced by some of the great scientists this century - Heisenberg, Von Neumann, Wigner and London. To quote Heisenberg:
| Quote: | | Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. This however is impossible. |
Or d'Espagnat:
| Quote: | | The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment. |
The answer which Ocalhoun seems to be persuing, and correctly so from a scientific point of view, is that they should perform the experiment to test their hypothesis. Knocking something before it is tested is the opposite of science. |
i'm afraid that you don't understand science as well as you think you do. i was not "knocking" anything, i was pointing out that he was not doing science, despite what he may have believed and despite what you claim. You cannot simply perform a random experiment, note correlations and then think you have come up with meaningful results. That's not science, that's silliness.
i'll show you. i have a theory that pirates reduce the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. i will test that theory by correlating the number of pirates to the carbon dioxide content. i get this graph. i have evidence that there's something to my theory, right? Obviously not. So what's missing?
Unsurprisingly, what's missing is precisely what i was asking for: a causal mechanism. To repeat myself: "You will have to explain how you came to this conclusion, given the fact that no other physical phenomenon ever observed succumbs to will alone." In other words, you will have to explain how thoughts might influence reality, not just guess that they do then start collecting data. A causal mechanism is required in a scientific theory.
Without a causal mechanism, all ocalhoun has done so far is as valid as the old pirates vs. global warming schtick.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | You cannot redirect the path of a projectile by "wanting" it to land somewhere else, can you? Seems to make all of science rather a joke, doesn't it? |
There have been several changes in the past century which made all of science up to that point a joke. For example, the development of quantum mechanics, and of special and general relativity. Another famous example being Poisson's spot. The way to test theories is not to declare them in contradiction with science, but to test them in experiment. |
i am aware of no changes in science that have made a joke of all previous science. Quantum mechanics and relativity did not make a mockery of all the physics that came before. They simply showed that previous physics did not apply to all of the areas that they apply to, although in all cases they simplify to classical physics in the areas that classical physics was developed in. Newtonian physics is still used in those areas where it applies. Similarly, Poisson's spot was not a joke on anyone but Poisson.
You seem to be labouring under the assumption that new physics proves old physics "wrong". It doesn't. It proves it incomplete. When we have a new theory, it will reduce to quantum mechanics and/or relativity.
| nopaniers wrote: |
It seems a joke that when we consciously observe a particle it behaves in a different way than when we do not observe it. However, when we perform the experiment, that is precisely what we do see.
http://hasylab.desy.de/news__events/research_highlights/archive/molecular_double_slit_experiment/index_eng.html
So, in your example of a projectile, if you watch a projectile it will land in a different position than if you do not observe it. This has been proved in the which-way double slit experiment using electrons, photons and now molecules. Measurement can be viewed as an update of an observer's belief about the measured observable. In this sense, a conscious observer certainly does change the outcome of experiment. |
No, -_- that's not what that experiment proves. You are misreading - specifically, you are misunderstanding what the role of the "observer" is in the experiment. The observer is not changing anything, the observer is just narrowing the possibilities (because if you've observed it there, then the probability of it being there is 1, not because you have observed it - you observed it because it is there, it is not there because you observed it). Closing the other slit also narrows the possibilities. There is no magical influence of observeration.I am only 16, so I may not understand everything you guys are talking about, but, even though your quantum suicide stuff sounds good, you cannot argue that everyone will not die eventually. So if the many worlds interpretation is to be true, consciousness cannot die but you will simply reincarnate into another person, in an infinite loop?
| Quote: |
| Closing the other slit also narrows the possibilities. There is no magical influence of observeration. |
I've noticed this a lot from atheists. They call anything they don't understand "magic". We will simply have to agree to disagree. I believe that the act of measurement does necessarily have a back-action in quantum mechanics. | Quote: |
| . So if the many worlds interpretation is to be true, consciousness cannot die but you will simply reincarnate into another person, in an infinite loop? |
Nope. It would mean that the gun doesn't go off. Because in the many world's theory there are many copies of you. If you get killed in any one universe, the other "yous" will live on... and if you are a conscious person, you will only ever experience the universes which you are alive in. So you will live forever.
Don't misunderstand. This is no scientific theory, it is completely ridiculous. What-ever you do, don't try it! I can't stress enough how bad this picture is. I only mention it because it is an example of a crazy idea similar idea to Ocalhoun's, where the person's consciousness affects the universe in a profound way.
Let me say it again: It is complete bunk. Rubbish. BS. | Quote: |
| You seem to be labouring under the assumption that new physics proves old physics "wrong". |
Sure Newtonian physics is an approximation, given the right circumstances. But for most cases I deal with, it is wrong. I'd be crazy to view the world that way, and my calculations, particularly in of the measurement of quantum systems which we are talking about, would give wildly incorrect results. It is a massive change, which is where the expression "quantum leap" comes from.
I think it's hard to describe the change from a deterministic system to a stochastic system as a minor one. The previous view of a deterministic universe was not some sort of approximation, it was just plain wrong. Similarly for the role of an observer in experiment. Before quantum mechanics you could imagine an observer who was completely impartial and separate from the system. After quantum mechanics, we always have to include the action of the observer on the system. Before special relativity, matter and energy were separate. Afterwards they're not. Same for electromagnetism. These aren't small shifts in thinking. These are fundamental ways of viewing the universe which have changed. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Closing the other slit also narrows the possibilities. There is no magical influence of observeration. |
I've noticed this a lot from atheists. They call anything they don't understand "magic". |
Oh yes. -_- That must be it. i mean, it's just totally obvious that there exists some mechanism in the universe that can detect and interpret the patterns of conscious or subconscious thought in our minds, intelligently parse and understand what it is that we desire, interpret the surrounding universe, identify which quarks and bosons to manipulate in order to achieve that goal, and influence those systems in such a way as to produce the desired result. i mean, that's just common sense, right? Anyone who can't see how such a thing would be possible is obviously some kind of ignorant, closed-minded atheist, right? i mean, this phenomenon of quantum mechanics clearly doesn't need a quantum physicist to understand it, it needs a theist. Right?
Give me a break. -_-
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I believe that the act of measurement does necessarily have a back-action in quantum mechanics. |
Hey, you believe what ever you want. If you want to believe that the quantum fairies can read peoples' minds and determine how to manipulate the universe to give them what they want, go nuts. i mean it makes perfect sense that just by willing his air conditioner to work, that is somehow enough for him to influence a machine that he doesn't know how it works - probably on a subatomic level, no less, when he probably doesn't know squat about subatomic physics and certainly nothing about the molecular structure of components of his air condition - in a predictable way. Sure. Right. -_-
If you want to believe that in some way just by looking at a particle, your eye sends some "eyeons" that interact with the wave function to collapse it, go nuts. i'm not going to stop you from believing whatever you want to believe, whether i think it's raving nonsense or not.
i will, however, not allow you to lie.
Current physics does not state that observation affects a system in the way you are describing. In fact, i know of no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does except for the ones that claim that observation by a conscious entity causes wavefunction collapse... basically, the junk science ones. You are misrepresenting quantum physics. In reality, it is nothing like the way you describe it. There is no mysticism, there is no unexplained interaction channel between the observer and the observed... there is none of any of that nonsense.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Sure Newtonian physics is an approximation, given the right circumstances. But for most cases I deal with, it is wrong. I'd be crazy to view the world that way, and my calculations, particularly in of the measurement of quantum systems which we are talking about, would give wildly incorrect results. |
In which case, you would be working in one of those areas i mentioned where Newtonian physics does not apply. -_- That doesn't make Newtonian physics a joke, because it's still perfectly useful in those areas to which it does apply (which, obviously, doesn't include your area - which i wouldn't have thought needed to be said, but... -_-). People that design skyscrapers and jet aircraft don't use quantum mechanics or relativity, dude. Get real.
Modern physics extends classical physics. It doesn't make a laughingstock out of it.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| It is a massive change, which is where the expression "quantum leap" comes from. |
Ha ha. ^_^; Cute. But complete and total bullshit. ^_^;
The expression quantum leap comes from the fact that changes in the energy levels of a system occur in quantum leaps. But, you should already know that, right? ^_^; Sheesh.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I think it's hard to describe the change from a deterministic system to a stochastic system as a minor one. The previous view of a deterministic universe was not some sort of approximation, it was just plain wrong. |
Orly? You have heard of the correspondence principle, yes?
In fact, have you heard of statistical mechanics? The thermodynamic limit? People were dealing with fluids as a probability distrubution long before quantum mechanics. You know, like back when they still thought the universe was deterministic.
You might want to check your facts a little more carefully.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Similarly for the role of an observer in experiment. Before quantum mechanics you could imagine an observer who was completely impartial and separate from the system. After quantum mechanics, we always have to include the action of the observer on the system. |
Um... no. >_< Half the time i can't figure out what you're talking about, because it's a blurry mish-mash of scientific sounding terms that you somehow cram together to get a conclusion that has no basis in modern physics at all. But i think what you're talking about in this case is observables, in that a system is determined by the values of its observables. Dude, that has nothing to do with any observation in the sense of "looking" at the system. -_-
Yes, quantum mechanics is built largely on the concept of observables... but that has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Before special relativity, matter and energy were separate. Afterwards they're not. Same for electromagnetism. These aren't small shifts in thinking. These are fundamental ways of viewing the universe which have changed. |
See, now your trying to twist the argument around to something that's easier to defend. That's not what you said, what you said was that changes in scientific knowledge make old science a joke - not that changes in science change our perceptions of the nature of the universe. Of course they do. But the old science still applies to those areas for which it was designed. New science builds on old science, and we may get a new understanding of why Newton's laws are the way they are, but we don't suddenly sit around saying: "Boy, how stupid were we? Guess we'd better stop using it." No, we continue to use it for those areas for which it applies. Both Schrödinger's equation and relativistic mechanics reduce to Newtonian mechanics when used within the regimes that Newtonian mechanics was developed for.Many hold the belief that there is no such thing as chance, no such thing as the free will of man. Our brains are simply adaptive computers which act upon outside variables. The logic behind this is there is no such thing as a random variable. How can we act with free will, if the very basis of our decision making is on a predetermined course? This theory blows apart quantum mechanics at it's base, yet it is nothing other than a little bit of logic, which is in no way proven.
| JJGY wrote: |
| Many hold the belief that there is no such thing as chance, no such thing as the free will of man. Our brains are simply adaptive computers which act upon outside variables. The logic behind this is there is no such thing as a random variable. How can we act with free will, if the very basis of our decision making is on a predetermined course? This theory blows apart quantum mechanics at it's base, yet it is nothing other than a little bit of logic, which is in no way proven. |
Free will is an illusion of multiple brain structures arguing with each other over a decision. The more structures, the more "free will." That is why when you are dreaming you don't have as much "free will." Imagine it like this. You are at an arcade. You are looking at 3000 different Pacman replay screens simultaneously (the demos you can't play.) You are bored, and have no money so you stand at the controls. To your amazement, when you move the joystick in some of the screens PacMan seems to respond to you! That is like freewill, (and the best analogy ever created.)Hey JJGY, get jiggy with it! That last two posts were quite interesting. Nopainers, try to argue with Indi like that and he will bog you down in ever more deeply enmeshed BS that simply destroyes that topic so that not a single person is reading besides the two of you. So on to the two interesting posts that are much more on topic:
Why are determinism and predetermination in any way contrary to free will? This is like the wave vs. particle debate over the true nature of photons. Both aspects are true simultaneously. As hard as it is to fathom, they are both true without there being a paradox.
I think the problem comes in with people being jealous of God. God knows all that will be, no matter how confusing the convoluted Time Wars get, God still knows the final outcome and precisely what will happen along the way. And so an Incarnation of God, and his closest associates, can act in perfect harmony with the Force. Every apparent state of confusion and mortality on his part is a faint within a faint within a faint, with things eventually working out for the best, even if it seemed like he had no clue what he was doing at the time. *That* is real determinism .
| Quote: |
| PS: Is it possible to get back to a universe after you've left it? Seems philosophically excluded. Just as there is vitually no chance that someone else arrives at the same universe as you! They must be all one-person universes, hence the infinite numbers. The other persons just seem to be there, weird isn't it? From whichever universe you are now: please try to respond back to this one - or I'll never know what happened next! Sorry - on hindsight: you'll have to respond into the universe that I hopped into, the number of hops itself will already be near infinite once you read this, I'm afraid... I hope my hoping will be sufficient! |
Now that there are so many pure scientists reflecting this subject... I'd like to ask your reaction to these issues. They are from the very second post in this chain. Between the lines it's not hard to read that I am a sceptic, still I wonder how these simple issues can be dealt with in a logical manner. Or is no-one serious at this subject?
Curious. | Royal wrote: |
| Quote: | | PS: Is it possible to get back to a universe after you've left it? Seems philosophically excluded. Just as there is vitually no chance that someone else arrives at the same universe as you! They must be all one-person universes, hence the infinite numbers. The other persons just seem to be there, weird isn't it? From whichever universe you are now: please try to respond back to this one - or I'll never know what happened next! Sorry - on hindsight: you'll have to respond into the universe that I hopped into, the number of hops itself will already be near infinite once you read this, I'm afraid... I hope my hoping will be sufficient! |
Now that there are so many pure scientists reflecting this subject... I'd like to ask your reaction to these issues. They are from the very second post in this chain. Between the lines it's not hard to read that I am a sceptic, still I wonder how these simple issues can be dealt with in a logical manner. Or is no-one serious at this subject?
Curious. |
First, the many worlds interpretation of particle wavefunction collapse is not science, it is pseudoscience.
Second, the many worlds interpretation has nothing to do with people, or consciousness, or perspective or observation. This is a subatomic phenomenon. That's something that usually gets lost when people start talking about the many worlds interpretation. Most people are familiar with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment (or the "quantum suicide" one, which is pretty much the same thing), which makes quantum fluctuations have life or death results. But that's a contrived example. The real macroscopic world isn't so sensitive to quantum fluctuations (except in those cases where we design devices that work that way, like transistors, or devices that are so small that they can be susceptible to it, like modern high-density integrated circuits).
The other problem is that people talk about this phenomenon as if it had something to do with decisions they were making. They say things like "well he asked me to marry him and the universe split and in one i said yes and in the other i said no", no, no, no. >_<; What's really happening is that at each moment - each "tick" of the universe - each subatomic particle can be at an infinite number of places at the same time, and at each moment, each particle is in all of those places, but only at one place in each universe. It has nothing to do with any decision you're making, or even whether a coin will land heads or tails.
Mind you, the neurons of your brain are made up of particles, so it's theoretically possible that if enough of those particles move in a certain way, a neuron may fire or not fire. If enough neurons did so, you could choose to say yes rather than no. In fact, in the many worlds interpretation... you did. You said both yes and no in different universes. In other universes, you just said "huh?" and in other universes you head exploded spontaneously. Everything happens, from the most mundane to the most ludicrous. But it's not your decisions affecting the universe... it's the universe affecting your decisions.
So it's not a matter of you making new universes with each decision, and thus not an issue of them being your own personal universe. It's the other way around. New universes are being created every instant, and in different universes you may make different decisions. You're not affecting the universe, the universe is affecting you. The many worlds interpretation makes each universe deterministic, with all the trappings that come with a deterministic universe. And of course, there is currently no way that we know of of communicating with alternate universes... or even determining which one you're in.
The many worlds interpretation is not science, and is not the interpretation used in modern physics. Modern physics interprets the wavefunction as a random probability cloud (aka, the Copenhagen interpretation), that functionally "collapses" on observation or interaction, giving us an indeterministic universe. However, the probabilities are such that the chances of anything really unexpected happening are so small that they will functionally never happen in the lifetime of our universe... that's why we can talk about the universe as deterministic even though it is not.
If all of this sounds really complex... it is. You really do need to learn the advanced math necessary to understand what's going on. Describing it in words just leads to confusion, which is where most of the nonsense claims associated with quantum theory come from.Royal, I think you can find an introduction to the many world's interpretation here:
http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm
I don't think there's a problem finding many people in the same universe. Yes. This does mean there are extraordinarily large numbers of universes - a number exponential in the number of configuration of particles.
Of course, this interpretation of the mathematics is only one of many. You can find several here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics
which includes a nice table.
---
Observe how Indi works:
(1) Indi takes a concept he doesn't agree with - in this case the back-action of an observation on the system being measured.
(2) He declares anyone who disagrees to believe in fairies and magic.
(3) He says anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't understand.
... and then makes it so long and boring so nobody has the time to correct all his mistakes.
Never mind that:
(1) We have a century's worth of experimental evidence indicating that it is so.
(2) It is incorporated into the usual axioms of quantum mechanics, as the Born rule.
(3) We are able to make quantitative predictions from the theory, which are observed in experiment. See for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/nature05027.html#B1
| Quote: |
| If you want to believe that in some way just by looking at a particle, your eye sends some "eyeons" that interact with the wave function to collapse it, go nuts. i'm not going to stop you from believing whatever you want to believe, whether i think it's raving nonsense or not. |
I would say that those particles are commonly called photons, and that they go from the object being observed to your eye. It is this process which induces decoherence on the system being observed, according to which an observer should update their knowledge the system. This process is described mathematically as wavefunction collapse.
However, I am well aware that this issue is not simple, and there are many interpretations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-measurement/ | Royal wrote: |
| Quote: | | PS: Is it possible to get back to a universe after you've left it? Seems philosophically excluded. Just as there is vitually no chance that someone else arrives at the same universe as you! They must be all one-person universes, hence the infinite numbers. The other persons just seem to be there, weird isn't it? From whichever universe you are now: please try to respond back to this one - or I'll never know what happened next! Sorry - on hindsight: you'll have to respond into the universe that I hopped into, the number of hops itself will already be near infinite once you read this, I'm afraid... I hope my hoping will be sufficient! |
Now that there are so many pure scientists reflecting this subject... I'd like to ask your reaction to these issues. They are from the very second post in this chain. Between the lines it's not hard to read that I am a sceptic, still I wonder how these simple issues can be dealt with in a logical manner. Or is no-one serious at this subject?
Curious. |
Ah, yes. These are question of great profundity that you ask. They are most worthy lines of enquiry indeed!
Indi would assert that the existence of multiple temporal dimensions, with their requisite alternate physical existence, is nothing but ignorant fancy, even as modern physics has conclusively proven the existence of multiple temporal dimensions for more than half a century. However, if you will sweep aside these puerile doubts of Ivory Tower ignorance, we can have a REAL discussion of the true nature of reality.
After discovering the multidimensional nature of time I did indeed contemplate a universe in which each individual has his or her own timestream in which he or she is the primary incarnation of God, but after extensive investigation I can no longer give credence to this concept. The Hero Eternal is, was, and will always be the central attractor of the massive universal fractal that we call Consciousness.
Temporal warfare rages, but there is only one absolute master of space and time. The oldest soul in the universe, the Primal Point of consciousness, must be able to relate to both the suffering and the sin of all those he wishes to rescue, and so the master time lord allows the seeds of evil to explode upon a whole group of timestreams that he knows are the most hardy, even so ferociously as to become one of their ilk, for an ephemeral passing moment. When you subsume evil you take on it’s insanity personally, and will of course loose your mind for a moment, or perhaps longer…
And perhaps even, all timestreams in existence are invaded and infected by the virulent evil of the dark invaders of time, but it is in fact for their own benefit that this is done. Each time the universe is “destroyed” in such a manner it expands dramatically to encompass a vast new array of newly born souls out beyond the darkness at the edge of the bright timestreams.Let me add that no matter how bad things get, evil always destroys itself. This is something that I take comfort in. It was a concept that was introduced to me in the biographical movie Gandhi. He said that the inevitable destruction of all evil tyrants and empires is something that “brings me great comfort.”
At the time it did not bring me such comfort, even as I was magically effected by the words. I did not truly believe that evil can be eradicated eternally. However, in the grand scheme of things, life can never be destroyed, I now realize. Life is truly eternal, but evil will always consume itself completely once it reaches its final victory and destroys all the life giving forces it sought so hard to conquer. Once having done so its own fate is sealed, and in the aftermath of total Annihilation in which all life is destroyed, life will rise again, invariably. It is a universal fail-safe, that life will always rise again, to witness that destroyed ruins of those that passed before, and be forewarned of how serious the situation is. So no matter how bad things get, those that rise up again after the apocalyptic war of Ragnorak is over, will always think more carefully about their own path, and in so doing the triumph of good is always assured at the ends of eternity.
And so, no matter how bad things get, the Hero Eternal will always return as the master time lord from the future, to show everyone what to avoid at the beginning of time. No matter how convoluted these multidimensional time wars get, the Eternal Champion will always be there to return to the beginning and start things over with greater wisdom.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Tue May 29, 2007 1:39 am; edited 1 time in total
| nopaniers wrote: |
Observe how Indi works:
(1) Indi takes a concept he doesn't agree with - in this case the back-action of an observation on the system being measured.
(2) He declares anyone who disagrees to believe in fairies and magic.
(3) He says anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't understand.
... and then makes it so long and boring so nobody has the time to correct all his mistakes. |
i see we've degenerated to insults.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| (1) We have a century's worth of experimental evidence indicating that it is so. |
False. You are merely interpreting the evidence to be so, which is backwards from standard interpretations.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| (2) It is incorporated into the usual axioms of quantum mechanics, as the Born rule. |
As i mentioned, Born's rule talks about observables. Not observers. There is a difference.
Not a free article, so i cannot comment.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | If you want to believe that in some way just by looking at a particle, your eye sends some "eyeons" that interact with the wave function to collapse it, go nuts. i'm not going to stop you from believing whatever you want to believe, whether i think it's raving nonsense or not. |
I would say that those particles are commonly called photons, and that they go from the object being observed to your eye. It is this process which induces decoherence on the system being observed, according to which an observer should update their knowledge the system. This process is described mathematically as wavefunction collapse. |
Would you say that? And how, pray tell, would you say that the system being observed "knows" to emit or redirect photons when it is being observed? Or to be affected by them differently when being observed than when not being observed?
Don't you think you have it backwards? Hasn't the wavefunction already collapsed due to interaction before observation... and independent of any observation for that mattter?
i say again, you are misinterpreting the concept of observables.Geek arguments. Lets get back to the subject at hand, philosophy and religion. The science board is over there ---->, Indi.
| nopaniers wrote: |
Never mind that:
(1) We have a century's worth of experimental evidence indicating that it is so.
(2) It is incorporated into the usual axioms of quantum mechanics, as the Born rule.
(3) We are able to make quantitative predictions from the theory, which are observed in experiment. See for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/nature05027.html#B1
|
The Born rule does not make any statements about 'back action', let alone make axiomatic assumptions. It simply gives a statistical probability that a particular observation will result in a given value of the property observed.Geeks collude. How about talking about religion and philosophy for a change, BM?
Take your bachelor’s degree in education back to your grammar school students.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Tue May 29, 2007 2:10 am; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| Nopainers, try to argue with Indi like that and he will bog you down in ever more deeply enmeshed BS that simply destroyes that topic |
Exactly. | Quote: |
| he Born rule does not make any statements about 'back action' |
Of course it does. The wavefunction collapses. You cannot make a measurement without affecting the state of the system.
Thank goodness you are here, BM!Oh sorry, you couldn't get the article. Let me quote:
| Quote: |
| Quantum mechanics demands that the act of measurement must affect the measured object. When a linear amplifier is used to continuously monitor the position of an object, the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship requires that the object be driven by force impulses, called back-action1, 2, 3. |
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05027.html
Quantum fairies make it into nature. | Quote: |
| And how, pray tell, would you say that the system being observed "knows" to emit or redirect photons when it is being observed? |
That is something that you should answer, considering you described the Copenhagen interpretation which requires different rules for measurement and for the evolution in a closed system. How does nature know when to use measurement postulate and when to use unitary evolution?
I prefer a picture of decoherence, in which the system becomes entangled with a large, macroscopic, environment whose state we don't know. If you trace out the environment (again invoking the Born rule, but this time because of the incomplete knowledge of the observer about such a large environment) then you see decoherence. If, on the other hand, we can tell the state of the environment from the measurement aparatus, then you can describe it as a positive operator valued measurement.
In the case of the system you described, with photons, I would not make the cut until the photon entered the measurement aparatus. Before this, it would, at least in principle, be possible to coherently reflect the photon back to the atom.
Now. Where would you make the cut?
-- Edit --- Sorry I missed this ---
| Quote: |
| Don't you think you have it backwards? Hasn't the wavefunction already collapsed due to interaction before observation... |
No! Not at all. Until the measurement is actually made, I can always interact the system (in this case the photon) back with the atom which emitted it. In that case I see coherent behaviour, and can describe it using unitary evolution alone. If you make the cut where you suggest then the theory does not match experiment!
Last edited by nopaniers on Tue May 29, 2007 3:26 am; edited 1 time in totalI think what Indi is trying to say that infinite universes spawn every moment. This would help explain "free will' and "consciousness" because by chance/probability every moment you go into a new universe and the new universe is similar to the one you journeyed from but your decisions will be based on the universe, not the universe waiting on your decisions. However, depending on your choices will determine which universe you will go into. Also, to note you must not think of universes conventionally, think of them as animation sequences in a movie/video game.
Last edited by EanofAthenasPrime on Tue May 29, 2007 3:15 am; edited 1 time in total
-sorry didnt mean to repost
Oh yes, that is what Indi was saying, don't you think, Indi?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| JJGY wrote: | | Many hold the belief that there is no such thing as chance, no such thing as the free will of man. Our brains are simply adaptive computers which act upon outside variables. The logic behind this is there is no such thing as a random variable. How can we act with free will, if the very basis of our decision making is on a predetermined course? This theory blows apart quantum mechanics at it's base, yet it is nothing other than a little bit of logic, which is in no way proven. |
Free will is an illusion of multiple brain structures arguing with each other over a decision. The more structures, the more "free will." That is why when you are dreaming you don't have as much "free will." Imagine it like this. You are at an arcade. You are looking at 3000 different Pacman replay screens simultaneously (the demos you can't play.) You are bored, and have no money so you stand at the controls. To your amazement, when you move the joystick in some of the screens PacMan seems to respond to you! That is like freewill, (and the best analogy ever created.) |
The analogy pertains only loosely to the subject, as our minds are very active variables in the infinitely complex framework we know as life, rather than a force playing upon a joystick which has absolutely no impact on the events playing out around us. Right now, I can move my finger up a few centimeters, and as a result a tiny bit of wind may shift out the window and help knock down leaf, and that leaf may fly away and have a very decisive impact on an event which escapes my imagination at the moment. This thread was created not in regard to the free will of man or any illusion therof, but with a somewhat radical belief of how our decisions are the only variables affecting our lives.
The topic creator seems to believe that any time a "random" event happens (such as that decision to raise my finger a centimeter) occurs, an alternate universe is created. (The actual science behind that has to do with the belief that our entire universe lies on a bent plane, which therefore allows matter to be duplicated over dimensions.) I simply pointed out the possibility that each and every change (including our decisions) in the universe is determined by simple variables. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | he Born rule does not make any statements about 'back action' |
Of course it does. The wavefunction collapses. You cannot make a measurement without affecting the state of the system.
Thank goodness you are here, BM! |
Born's rule:
prob(bi) = |<A|B=bi>|e2
It gives the probability of an observable being measured, it does not mention back action nor does it imply anything about wave-function collapse. It simply gives the probabilities. You are assuming that Born's rule implies the Collapse Postulate - I disagree. | Bikerman wrote: |
| nopaniers wrote: | | Quote: | | he Born rule does not make any statements about 'back action' |
Of course it does. The wavefunction collapses. You cannot make a measurement without affecting the state of the system.
Thank goodness you are here, BM! |
Born's rule:
prob(bi) = |<A|B=bi>|e2
It gives the probability of an observable being measured, it does not mention back action nor does it imply anything about wave-function collapse.
|
What about the collapse of any relevant meaning in a conversation?
| Bikerman wrote: |
It simply gives the probabilities.
|
You mean the probability of total meaninglessness overtaking a conversation?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| You are assuming that Born's rule implies the Collapse Postulate - I disagree. |
Of course you will disagree on any matter that helps to destroy relevant discussion of philosophy and religion. | JJGY wrote: |
| I simply pointed out the possibility that each and every change (including our decisions) in the universe is determined by simple variables. |
To cut you long winded obfuscation short, you are saying that if one event is meaningless then all things must be meaningless.
If your life has no meaning then why not go ahead and commit suicide now? Camus once said that the ultimate question in life is whether or not to commit suicide. If you think that life is utterly devoid of meaning then the answer is very clear, go ahead and kill yourself now rather than suffer any more of this meaninglessness.
Go ahead, put you money where you mouth is? As for myself, I believe that every little thing in life is full of infinite meaning, and so I will live on, while you contemplate your death.Bikerman, so you disagree with the Nature paper then?
Yes, Born's rules gives the probability of observing the system in a particular eigenstate of a Hermitian observable.
The point is that according to the measurement postulate (ie. axiom), you must also update |psi> according to |psi'> = |psi_b>, where b labels the eigenvalue measured, psi_b is the corresponding eigenstate and psi the original state of the system. That is the back-action in this case.
You can find this in any good textbook. Online, I found this
http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~serge/QM_notes_3.pdf
Bugger this. | Quote: |
| What about the collapse of any relevant meaning in a conversation? |
No kidding. | nopaniers wrote: |
Bikerman, so you disagree with the Nature paper then?
Yes, Born's rules gives the probability of observing the system in a particular eigenstate of a Hermitian observable.
The point is that according to the measurement postulate (ie. axiom), you must also update |psi> according to |psi'> = |psi_b>, where b labels the eigenvalue measured, psi_b is the corresponding eigenstate and psi the original state of the system. That is the back-action in this case.
You can find this in any good textbook. Online, I found this
http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~serge/QM_notes_3.pdf
|
I found
This (PDF)
HTML
& This (PDF)
HTML | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Nopainers, try to argue with Indi like that and he will bog you down in ever more deeply enmeshed BS that simply destroyes that topic |
Exactly. |
Is that really necessary? Do you really have to insult me to continue this conversation? If that's the case, say so and i will leave, because i don't play that game.
Furthermore, i should point out that it was you who introduced this discussion by your flawed introduction of quantum mechanics into the topic. Not me. i simply pointed out that your interpretation of quantum mechanics is flawed.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | he Born rule does not make any statements about 'back action' |
Of course it does. The wavefunction collapses. You cannot make a measurement without affecting the state of the system. |
Yes, but you don't understand what "measurement" means. You said it means: "Measurement can be viewed as an update of an observer's belief about the measured observable." No, not in this context, not in quantum mechanics. Observation and measurement are entirely different things. Measurement usually includes observation... but it doesn't have to, and it is that difference that untangles this bizarre notion of quantum mechanics you have. i would suggest that you start being more careful about your use of the two terms - measurement and observation. They are not interchangeable.
The reason measurement affects the state of a system is because in order measure something, you must apply energy to it - for example, in order to "see" the location of an electron, you have to bounce a photon off of it. The photon hits the electron and bounces off, now containing information about the electron's location... but by hitting and bouncing off, the photon has changed the electron's location. It is at this point that the act of measurement has affected the system. The observer does not have anything to do with it. Furthermore, as far as the observer is concerned, the wavefunction has not yet collapsed.
Then the photon travels back from the electron to the observer's eye or measuring device. At that point the wavefunction collapses because now the observer knows where the particle was when the electron hit it, which collapses the probability cloud to only those solutions that allow it to have been at that point at that time. But nothing happens to the particle when the wavefunction collapses. -_- The observer does not affect the system at all.
| nopaniers wrote: |
Oh sorry, you couldn't get the article. Let me quote:
| Quote: | | Quantum mechanics demands that the act of measurement must affect the measured object. When a linear amplifier is used to continuously monitor the position of an object, the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship requires that the object be driven by force impulses, called back-action1, 2, 3. |
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05027.html
Quantum fairies make it into nature. |
You're misinterpreting what it says. ^_^; You're using measurement and observation as synonyms. They are not the same thing.
What that article is apparently saying is that the act of measurement affects the system because the force impulses used as measurement media have an affect the system. All true. But all totally unrelated to observation. The force pulses will affect the system whether or not anyone is observing the results, or even whether or not the device that reads the force pulses is connected. As long as the force pulses exist, the system is affected, observation or no.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | And how, pray tell, would you say that the system being observed "knows" to emit or redirect photons when it is being observed? |
That is something that you should answer, considering you described the Copenhagen interpretation which requires different rules for measurement and for the evolution in a closed system. How does nature know when to use measurement postulate and when to use unitary evolution? |
It doesn't. -_- The wavefunction isn't something inside of the particle that changes on observation or non-observation. The wavefunction is a property of the observer, meaning that the wavefunction will collapse at different times for different observers.
There is no difference in nature between an observed and an unobserved system (note: observed not measured. you keep swapping the two terms and confusing yourself.) The difference is that if you are trying to predict what will happen in the unobserved system, you have to use probabilities... because you haven't observed the system so you don't know what state it's in. But if you are trying to predict what will happen in the observed system, you will have information about the system that you can use so that you don't need to use probabilites. The behaviour of the system, however, does not change.
Measuring, of course, changes the system, because of the interaction of the measurement particle with the measured system. That's something else entirely. Once again, if you took the observed system and the unobserved system and fired photons at both, but only observed the photons coming off of the first system, then both systems will be affected identically... but still you could use the information you have gathered for the observed system, but must resort to probabilities for the unobserved system. That's all there is to it. You are seeing weirdness because you are misunderstanding, not because it exists.
Maybe it would be better to put it in a table of sorts: | Code: |
Step Wavefunction System state
Intial state Probability cloud (uncollapsed) Natural
Measurement begins, Probability cloud (uncollapsed) Natural
a photon is fired
at the system
Photon hits system Probability cloud (uncollapsed) Affected by measurement
and bounces back
Photon travels back Probability cloud (uncollapsed) Affected by measurement
to the observer
Observer gets info Collapsed Affected by measurement
from photon about
system |
You see? The observer does not affect the system. It is affected long before it is observed (and even if it had not been observed, it would still have been affected). Observation collapsed the wavefuction, but that doesn't actually mean that the system is affected, only that the observer's understanding of the system has been collapsed to "certainty" rather than a probability cloud (where "certainty" is constrained by the bounds of the uncertainty principle).
This mysterious "back action" you're talking about is not what you think it is. It has nothing to do with the observer. It is the act of measurement affecting the system... measurement, not observation. Separate those terms! When the observer "causes" wavefunction collapse, that doesn't mean the system is affected, just the observer's understanding of the system. | JJGY wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | JJGY wrote: | | Many hold the belief that there is no such thing as chance, no such thing as the free will of man. Our brains are simply adaptive computers which act upon outside variables. The logic behind this is there is no such thing as a random variable. How can we act with free will, if the very basis of our decision making is on a predetermined course? This theory blows apart quantum mechanics at it's base, yet it is nothing other than a little bit of logic, which is in no way proven. |
Free will is an illusion of multiple brain structures arguing with each other over a decision. The more structures, the more "free will." That is why when you are dreaming you don't have as much "free will." Imagine it like this. You are at an arcade. You are looking at 3000 different Pacman replay screens simultaneously (the demos you can't play.) You are bored, and have no money so you stand at the controls. To your amazement, when you move the joystick in some of the screens PacMan seems to respond to you! That is like freewill, (and the best analogy ever created.) |
The analogy pertains only loosely to the subject, as our minds are very active variables in the infinitely complex framework we know as life, rather than a force playing upon a joystick which has absolutely no impact on the events playing out around us. Right now, I can move my finger up a few centimeters, and as a result a tiny bit of wind may shift out the window and help knock down leaf, and that leaf may fly away and have a very decisive impact on an event which escapes my imagination at the moment. This thread was created not in regard to the free will of man or any illusion therof, but with a somewhat radical belief of how our decisions are the only variables affecting our lives.
The topic creator seems to believe that any time a "random" event happens (such as that decision to raise my finger a centimeter) occurs, an alternate universe is created. (The actual science behind that has to do with the belief that our entire universe lies on a bent plane, which therefore allows matter to be duplicated over dimensions.) I simply pointed out the possibility that each and every change (including our decisions) in the universe is determined by simple variables. |
Actually, the analogy has nothing to do with the subject. It was a response to some tangental posts. Also, mike1reynolds, double posting is against the rules.I am honestly trying to understand what you are writing, Indi. Although it's difficult when you use terms like "probability cloud" to refer to wavefunctions.
I have an electron, and a photon. Let us for simplicity say that the photon is in state 1 if the electron was excited (state 1 for the electron) and state 0 if the electron was not excited (state 0 for the electron). Let's say the electron is in superposition state, which is 50% excited, and 50% not. So it's wavefunction is now:
|psi> = |0> + |1> / sqrt(2).
Okay. All good so far, right?
Now the systems interact, and the electron's state changes because of the exchange of energy with the photon. That it is this exchange of energy which forces the system into a particular state which we do not know yet. So if the photon reads |1> then (provided the measurement is to be correct) then the electron had better be in the |1> state too... and similarly for the |0> state.
So with 50% probability, I am in the state: electron |0>, photon |0>
And with 50% probability, I am in the state: electron |1>, photon |1>
Is that right?
Now I observe the photon, with my eye, and so I "collapse" the wavefunction. So I can only then say for certain that the electron was actually in state |0> say. So at this point I update,
|psi'> = |0>
That is the picture I get from your explanation. If I have misinterpreted you then please correct me. Is what I described correct?
Last edited by nopaniers on Wed May 30, 2007 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total
| Indi wrote: |
| Would you say that? And how, pray tell, would you say that the system being observed "knows" to emit or redirect photons when it is being observed? Or to be affected by them differently when being observed than when not being observed? |
The system being observed does not know!
The system being observed exists in multiple copies in multiple universes.
When we observe it, we determine which copy we observe.
Once we observe that copy, then the other copies become impossible from our point of view. This is the point where the universes branch off, never to meet again.
But what determines which copy we see?
Random chance? Or is it something else?
By the way, so far the $50 bill experiment is failing, though it could still succeed since I never gave it a time limit.
I think I need to find a more effective way of convincing myself first; I'll try a form of self-hypnosis that I've tried before for other things.
Also, I wonder if I still do not understand it. I think that perhaps I need to consider that time is not a factor in this.
For example:
The projectile experiment:
We view the projectile, without making any calculations about where it will land. It lands (of course) where we really suspected it would. Then we do some calculations, and find that it was completely impossible, save by the entire projectile quantum tunneling, for it to land where it did. This would not happen.
Somehow, the future predictions of what will (did) happen will change the past.
In other words, the projectile will land exactly where it could be calculated to land, no matter where we expect it to land, because in the future we determine that it was impossible for it to land where we expected it to land.
I think that this theory will not work if you can prove that what you believe will happen is impossible in the future.
For example: I try to switch on a lamp (Little do I know that someone else unplugged it). I wholeheartedly believe it will turn on. But it does not. Why? Because in the future I might be astounded to notice that the lamp is working while not plugged in. Or I might be surprised when the someone comes in and tells me it was unplugged, then we determine that it somehow got plugged in all by itself.
I agree that this is not making a terrible amount of sense so far, but there is some kernel of truth here, and I'm trying to find it. All help is appreciated. (Even Indi's)
Another thing I need to do is find a way to make a detailed and objective analysis of what I really believe will happen before I know the result of the test. Also, my theory doesn't really explain completely random occurrences, like seeing a purple car on the way to work. What part of me expected to see a purple car? (Though it is true that no part of me expected not to see a purple car...)
This can all get very very confusing.Bikerman, did you apply your own tests to your references?
Indi, your interpretation of quantum mechanics is a local hidden variable theory.
| nopaniers wrote: |
I am honestly trying to understand what you are writing, Indi. Although it's difficult when you use terms like "probability cloud" to refer to wavefunctions.
...
That is the picture I get from your explanation. If I have misinterpreted you then please correct me. Is what I described correct? |
Yes... but i'm not sure whether or not that's improving the situation. The problem with what you keep doing is that you keep using the right terminology... but then drawing the wrong conclusions from it, which implies to me that you don't understand the meaning of the terms. Of course, you usually quote the right words when you explain them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand them.
Make it simple. Forget the esoteric math and put everything in terms that a child can grasp. For starters, don't use energy... use position. Why? There are several reasons:
1.) Energy is not intuitive. What does it mean to have more energy? To go faster? To be more massive? To have a different wavelength? It could mean all of these things, in different situations.
2.) Energy is not a trivial function of the system. The energy operator is either a partial differential or a second order partial differential (depending on what kind of energy you're talking about... see point 1). The position operator is trivial.
3.) Energy is quantized, position is not (normally). You have to use discrete math to talk about energy, but good old fashioned continuous math to talk about position.
And after all, energy and time are related in exactly the same way as position and momentum, so there's no real change except you're increasing the ease of understanding.
So, say you have an electron with no energy (ie, at the lowest possible energy state, which i know is not zero, but hang on) inside of a negatively charged spherical shell, and the system is in equilibrium. According to classical physics, you will find the electron at the center. But according to quantum physics, even at the lowest energy state the electron still has non-zero energy, which means it's still skipping around. The probability of finding the electron at the center is far, far higher than finding it near the shell. If you were to plot the probabilities in two dimensions, with white being high and black being low probability, you would get something like this:
That is the probability cloud of the wavefunction. (The probability cloud for energy is a dotted line, with the spaces between the dots indicating the differences in energy levels.)
So you have three observers, A, B and C - none of whom can communicate with the others. All of them have the same wavefunction, which represents a superposition of all those potential positions. None of them know exactly what position the electron is at, all they have is this probability cloud.
The meaning of the wavefunction
Here's the first problem most people have with quantum mechanics. They believe that just because the wavefunction describes a superposition of states, that the electon is literally neither here nor there... that it is in some kind of bizarro multi-state where it is literally at all of the potential positions (or energy states) described by the wavefunction at the same time. That was exactly the kind of thing Schrödinger's cat was designed to poke fun at - this idea that the cat could be literally both dead and alive in some superimposed state of zombie undeadness. But that's not the case. The cat really is dead or alive. The problem is that an outside observer cannot know which, and thus must describe it as a distribution of probabilities - for the outside observer the cat is 50% dead and 50% alive. But that doesn't have any meaning in reality... the cat is either dead or alive, you just can't know which.
So our electron whose wavefunction has not yet collapsed for any observer is not in some strange "superimposed state". It is literally either here, or there, or in one of the locations that it has a finite probability of being in... but without collapsing the wavefunction, the observer cannot know which. Collapsing the wavefunction has no effect on the electron.
Observation
So now, say observer A knows where the electon is... without measuring. Say, for instance, that they put it there with an electron gun. For observer A, the wavefunction has collapsed, and they know that the particle is at position X at time T (ignore uncertainty, it changes nothing except we have to replace all X's with ΔX's and so on). But the wavefunction has not collapsed for either B or C, because neither of them can communicate with A, and for both of them the particle's position is still undetermined. For B and C, the particle is still in the probability cloud.
Note that A's observation of the electron's position, and the subsequent collapse of the wavefunction, has not effect on the system. This is what i've been trying to say. Observation does nothing to the system. Observation collapses the wavefunction for the observer. Nothing happens to the observered system. The electron is at position X, where A put it. B and C are not aware of this - they've just been told that the electron is in the lowest energy state and it's inside the shell... you could even tell them A put it there, it wouldn't change anything because they cannot communicate with A to find out exactly where it is - so as far as they are concerned, the wavefunction has not collapsed and the system is untouched.
Measurement
So now B wants to find out where the electron is. So he measures by using photons to find the position of the electron. He fires a bunch of photons into the apparatus, and by the ricochet, locates the electron at position X at time T (again, ignore uncertainty). At this point, two things happen. First, the wavefunction for B collapses... B now knows where the electron is. Second, the photon interactions change the position of the electron to X' at time T'. Because of B's measurement, the wavefunction that has collapsed for A and B is no longer valid. B's measurement has affected the system.
Note that for C, the original wavefunction never collapsed, even though it had for both A and B. The electron has been both observed and measured, but because C cannot communicate with either A or B, as far as C is concerned the wavefunction is still a probability cloud.
Of course, now that B's measurement photon has changed the system (not B's observation, or A's... the process of measurement did it). The collapsed wavefunctions of A and B are no longer valid. The electron is now at position X', wherever that is. A, B and C have to start from scratch with new probability clouds.
This is the table of the steps: | Code: |
Step A B C Position
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Collapsed Uncollapsed Uncollapsed X
B fires photon Collapsed Uncollapsed Uncollapsed X
Photon hits Collapsed Uncollapsed Uncollapsed X'
electron but outdated and outdated and outdated
B observes Collapsed Collapsed Uncollapsed X'
photon but outdated but outdated and outdated |
There is no magical influence of observer on the system. That would require some kind of radiation to be going from the observer to the system. When a wavefunction collapses, it does nothing to the system it is describing, it just means that the observer has collapsed the probability cloud to a single position (again, ignoring uncertainty, which means it has collapsed to a small range of positions).
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Indi, your interpretation of quantum mechanics is a local hidden variable theory. |
No, it is not. There are no hidden variables in current quantum mechanics.Indi, your description of quantum mechanics is a local hidden variable theory. You cannot describe quantum mechanics with localized classical probability distributions - even correlated ones. Wikipedia's somewhat simplistic opening line is:
| Quote: |
| In quantum mechanics, a local hidden variable theory is one in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous effect on local ones. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory
In your case, you claim the electron definitely has a particular state before the photon is measured. That is your hidden variable. It is local because you claim that the electron and photon are quite separate.
Most people reject hidden variables, and emphasise that it is not possible to represent the state of the photon seperately from the state of the electron. We say that after the systems interacted their wavefunctions are no longer seperable. We call this entanglement. In our case,
|psi> = |00> + |11> / sqrt(2).
Your picture starts to go wrong when you realize that you do not need to measure the photon in the |0> or |1> basis, or choose the measurement direction until after the interaction has occurred. You could for example measure in the |+> / |-> basis:
|+> = |0> + |1>/sqrt(2)
|-> = |0> - |1> /sqrt(2)
Using two photons rather than just one, Bell showed that the two theories give very different results - results which are testable in experiment. Aspect tested them. And low and behold - you can never have a local hidden variable model.
The standard thing to do, as I said, is to throw away the hidden variable. Of course, you can also throw away locality. Bohmain mechanics is a hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics which is non-local.
Now, I realize that you're probably going to flame me again, and say that I don't understand, ect. ect. But please consider what I have to say. I am not doing it to hurt you, or in a malicious way. The opposite in fact. | nopaniers wrote: |
Indi, your description of quantum mechanics is a local hidden variable theory. You cannot describe quantum mechanics with localized classical probability distributions - even correlated ones. Wikipedia's somewhat simplistic opening line is:
| Quote: | | In quantum mechanics, a local hidden variable theory is one in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous effect on local ones. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory
In your case, you claim the electron definitely has a particular state before the photon is measured. That is your hidden variable. It is local because you claim that the electron and photon are quite separate.
Most people reject hidden variables, and emphasise that it is not possible to represent the state of the photon seperately from the state of the electron. We say that after the systems interacted their wavefunctions are no longer seperable. We call this entanglement. In our case,
|psi> = |00> + |11> / sqrt(2).
Your picture starts to go wrong when you realize that you do not need to measure the photon in the |0> or |1> basis, or choose the measurement direction until after the interaction has occurred. You could for example measure in the |+> / |-> basis:
|+> = |0> + |1>/sqrt(2)
|-> = |0> - |1> /sqrt(2)
Using two photons rather than just one, Bell showed that the two theories give very different results - results which are testable in experiment. Aspect tested them. And low and behold - you can never have a local hidden variable model.
The standard thing to do, as I said, is to throw away the hidden variable. Of course, you can also throw away locality. Bohmain mechanics is a hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics which is non-local.
Now, I realize that you're probably going to flame me again, and say that I don't understand, ect. ect. But please consider what I have to say. I am not doing it to hurt you, or in a malicious way. The opposite in fact. |
The problem with simplifying is that when you simplify in order to illustrate one thing, everything else suffers. Yes, i am aware that it makes no physical sense to talk about the location of the particle prior to observation - talking about the particle in that way was a simplification of the truth, which is that the particle is described by a series of characteristic functions. And of course the particle itself is not a localized phenomenon. And of course there are non-local factors that can affect the particle, for example if it is entangled with another particle.
You can add all of those things to the example i gave and it changes nothing really, except that it adds needless complexity. For example, i didn't say specifically how the measurement photon interacts with the electron... i just implied that they bounce off of each other like a pair of billiard balls, which is obviously not true.
The point of the thought experiment will be unchanged by adding any of those things. The point of which is that observation does not affect the system, it only collapses the wavefunction... for the observer. If two observers cannot communicate then the second observer still has an uncollapsed wavefunction, and from his point of view the first observer is not part of the system at all.
However, if the first observer had to measure the position of the particle to observe it, then the first observer becomes part of the system, even from the second observer's point of view. That is because it is the measurement process that affects the system, not observation.
Since you are doing research on Wikipedia, i direct you to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse. Why? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying when you say: "It seems a joke that when we consciously observe a particle it behaves in a different way than when we do not observe it." As i have been asking from the start... do you mean measure, not observe? Observation does not change the system, it merely changes our understanding of it. Measurement entangles the measurement apparatus (which usually includes us) with the system, making the wavefunctions no longer independent. You have been switching terminology back and forth, so i can't tell exactly what you mean.
You keep saying that an observer is part of the system being observed. Yes, that's true in all real cases, because a system cannot be observed until it is interacted with by measuring - either actively or passively - at which point everything becomes interdependent. But it is not the observation component that causes the entanglement, it is the measurement.There are three "obvious" assumptions which many people make about reality:
(1) Locality: That action can't happen at a distance.
(2) Realism: That there is a measurement result that occurs 100% of the time, then the particle really is in that state.
(3) A hidden variable theory: Insistence that the electron and photon are in actually in a particular state, but we don't know what it is.
Some people, as Indi demonstrates, even ridicule those who don't believe all these "obvious" things. But Bell showed that together these three "obvious" things are inconsistent with experiment. That's why quantum mechanics is hard: It's just plain weird! It has nothing to do with difficult maths (which I don't find so hard).
Indi, if you really want to stick with your thought experiment (3) - then please tell us which one of (1) locality or (2) realism that you reject?
| Quote: |
| Second, the many worlds interpretation has nothing to do with people, or consciousness, or perspective or observation. |
As I understand it, the opposite is true. Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, the many world's interpretation denies a special role for measurement. Instead, in MWI we all end up in Schroedinger cat like states, which the MWI asserts are each real. We are the cat, in other words. It is ONLY our perspective - the fact that our brain becomes correlated with the thing we're measuring - that determines which of the many worlds we actually experience.
| Quote: |
| As i have been asking from the start... do you mean measure, not observe? Observation does not change the system, it merely changes our understanding of it. |
I don't want to get into a long discussion about the meaning of words. What you describe as "measurement" would normally be called an "interaction". What you call an "observation" would normally be called a "measurement". This is fundamentally important, because in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics we have a special rule (known as the measurement postulate) which we apply when measurements occur.
To answer your question though, observation and measurement are the same. I take an operational view of measurement: A measurement is a click on a detector.
PS. I'm not doing research on Wikipedia. The links were provided for your benefit, not mine. I was hoping that you would learn something... | nopaniers wrote: |
There are three "obvious" assumptions which many people make about reality:
(1) Locality: That action can't happen at a distance.
(2) Realism: That there is a measurement result that occurs 100% of the time, then the particle really is in that state.
(3) A hidden variable theory: Insistence that the electron and photon are in actually in a particular state, but we don't know what it is.
Some people, as Indi demonstrates, even ridicule those who don't believe all these "obvious" things. But Bell showed that together these three "obvious" things are inconsistent with experiment. That's why quantum mechanics is hard: It's just plain weird! It has nothing to do with difficult maths (which I don't find so hard). |
Maybe I read Bell wrong, but my understanding of Bell's theorem (Inequality) is that it simple states that no theory of local hidden variables can explain the results of QM experiments. In short it describes what we now understand as Quantum Entanglement. In terms of realism it rules out 'local realism' only. This is also the case with hidden variables, ie it only rules out local hidden variables - Bohm's Interpretation, for example, uses the notion of non-local hidden variables.
As for realism - MWI is an example of a system which maintains philosophical reality (and, incidentally, locality) and still conforms to Bell's Inequality 
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Second, the many worlds interpretation has nothing to do with people, or consciousness, or perspective or observation. |
As I understand it, the opposite is true. Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, the many world's interpretation denies a special role for measurement. Instead, in MWI we all end up in Schroedinger cat like states, which the MWI asserts are each real. We are the cat, in other words. It is ONLY our perspective - the fact that our brain becomes correlated with the thing we're measuring - that determines which of the many worlds we actually experience. |
No, this is not correct. MWI substitutes Quantum Decoherence for Wave function Collapse. It allows QM to be defined in classical terms as local, realist and deterministic and, as far as I know, there is no suggestion that the observer influences observation at all - that is one of the defining differences between MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation, and is also the reason that the distinction between observation and measurement is important. Perspective is irrelevant since the creation of alternative universes is triggered by a quantum 'junction' and is completely independent of the observer. The fact that a potential observer could find themselves in a different universe is irrelevant to the process of such a universe actually coming into existence and is, therefore, irrelevant to the main issue at hand | Quote: |
I don't want to get into a long discussion about the meaning of words. What you describe as "measurement" would normally be called an "interaction". What you call an "observation" would normally be called a "measurement". This is fundamentally important, because in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics we have a special rule (known as the measurement postulate) which we apply when measurements occur.
To answer your question though, observation and measurement are the same. I take an operational view of measurement: A measurement is a click on a detector. |
I do not believe that this is correct. Measurement can be made completely independently (in both time and space) from observation. The Measurement Problem in QM applies to the act of Measurement and not to that of observation. Decoherence / wave function collapse happens regardless of whether a conscious mind observes the turning on of a detector or the inclusion of a new potential path in a quantum system.
Your operational view of measurement would not, for example, deal correctly with a system which (as an example of the top of my head) periodically (or even aperiodically) automatically turns on a beam detector in one of two potential pathways in a Quantum System. The method of activation is irrelevant - let's say it does so on the basis of a random number generator, so let's take it to be aperiodic. Let's further assume that the basic setup is a classical 2-slits experiment and that the presence or otherwise of an interference fringe is recorded by a stills camera which is activated at the same time as the beam detector changes state. According to QM the moment the beam detector becomes active and, therefore, the path of an individual particle becomes 'knowable', the wavefunction collapses (or decoherence occurs) and the fringe pattern disappears, yes?
My understanding is that this happens when the beam detector is switched on, NOT when an observation is made, and since the thing can be switched on without any human intervention, as in the above case, and without any correlating measurement being consciously made, then surely you must acknowledge a functional/operational difference between measurement and observation? Measurement is performed mechanistically by the beam detector which does not require any conscious intervention at all. Observation is completely different as, by definition it requires an observer and this observer is normally assumed to be a sentient human being. Indi's point was, I believe, that the distinction is crucial and non-interchangable. I tend to agree.
| Quote: |
| PS. I'm not doing research on Wikipedia. The links were provided for your benefit, not mine. I was hoping that you would learn something... |
Well, my research has certainly included Wikki as well as other sources, but I rely mainly on Penrose and Green for the fundamentals of this field.
I am no expert in this (or any other) field of Physics as I freely and frequently admit but I have a better than average understanding of some of it and, of course, if my understanding is incorrect I am always grateful for clarification/correction. With that in mind, if I have either misrepresented your position or misunderstood QM generally then please correct as appropriate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem | nopaniers wrote: |
There are three "obvious" assumptions which many people make about reality:
(1) Locality: That action can't happen at a distance.
(2) Realism: That there is a measurement result that occurs 100% of the time, then the particle really is in that state.
(3) A hidden variable theory: Insistence that the electron and photon are in actually in a particular state, but we don't know what it is.
Some people, as Indi demonstrates, even ridicule those who don't believe all these "obvious" things. But Bell showed that together these three "obvious" things are inconsistent with experiment. That's why quantum mechanics is hard: It's just plain weird! It has nothing to do with difficult maths (which I don't find so hard). |
Maybe I read Bell wrong, but my understanding of Bell's theorem (Inequality) is that it simple states that no theory of local hidden variables can explain the results of QM experiments. In short it describes what we now understand as Quantum Entanglement. In terms of realism it rules out 'local realism' only. This is also the case with hidden variables, ie it only rules out local hidden variables - Bohm's Interpretation, for example, uses the notion of non-local hidden variables.
As for realism - MWI is an example of a system which maintains philosophical reality (and, incidentally, locality) and still conforms to Bell's Inequality
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Second, the many worlds interpretation has nothing to do with people, or consciousness, or perspective or observation. |
As I understand it, the opposite is true. Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, the many world's interpretation denies a special role for measurement. Instead, in MWI we all end up in Schroedinger cat like states, which the MWI asserts are each real. We are the cat, in other words. It is ONLY our perspective - the fact that our brain becomes correlated with the thing we're measuring - that determines which of the many worlds we actually experience. |
MWI substitutes Quantum Decoherence for Wave function Collapse. It allows QM to be defined in classical terms as local, realist and deterministic and, as far as I know measurement , there is no suggestion that the observer influences observation at all - that is one of the defining differences between MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation, and is also the reason that the distinction between observation and measurement is important. Perspective is irrelevant since the creation of alternative universes is triggered by a quantum 'junction' and is completely independent of the observer. The fact that a potential observer could find themselves in a different universe is irrelevant to the process of such a universe actually coming into existence and is, therefore, irrelevant to the main issue at hand | Quote: |
I don't want to get into a long discussion about the meaning of words. What you describe as "measurement" would normally be called an "interaction". What you call an "observation" would normally be called a "measurement". This is fundamentally important, because in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics we have a special rule (known as the measurement postulate) which we apply when measurements occur.
To answer your question though, observation and measurement are the same. I take an operational view of measurement: A measurement is a click on a detector. |
I do not believe that this is correct. Measurement can be made completely independently (in both time and space) from observation. The Measurement Problem in QM applies to the act of Measurement and not to that of observation. Decoherence / wave function collapse happens regardless of whether a conscious mind observes the turning on of a detector or the inclusion of a new potential path in a quantum system.
Your operational view of measurement would not, for example, deal correctly with a system which (as an example of the top of my head) periodically (or even aperiodically) automatically turns on a beam detector in one of two potential pathways in a Quantum System. The method of activation is irrelevant - let's say it does so on the basis of a random number generator, so let's take it to be aperiodic. Let's further assume that the basic set-up is a classical 2-slits experiment and that the presence or otherwise of an interference fringe is recorded by a stills camera which is activated at the same time as the beam detector changes state. According to QM the moment the beam detector becomes active and, therefore, the path of an individual particle becomes 'knowable', the wave function collapses (or decoherence occurs) and the fringe pattern disappears, yes?
My understanding is that this happens when the beam detector is switched on, NOT when an observation is made, and since the thing can be switched on without any human intervention, as in the above case, and without any correlating measurement being consciously made, then surely you must acknowledge a functional/operational difference between measurement and observation? Measurement is performed mechanistically by the beam detector which does not require any conscious intervention at all. Observation is completely different as, by definition it requires an observer and this observer is normally assumed to be a sentient human being. Indi's point was, I believe, that the distinction is crucial and that the two are non-interchangeable. I tend to agree.
| Quote: |
| PS. I'm not doing research on Wikipedia. The links were provided for your benefit, not mine. I was hoping that you would learn something... |
Well, my research has certainly included Wikki as well as other sources, but I rely mainly on Penrose and Green for the fundamentals of this field.
I am no expert in this (or any other) field of Physics as I freely and frequently admit but I have a better than average understanding of some of it and, of course, if my understanding is incorrect I am always grateful for clarification/correction. With that in mind, if I have either misrepresented your position or misunderstood QM generally then please correct as appropriate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/measurement-in-qm/ | Quote: |
| Maybe I read Bell wrong, but my understanding of Bell's theorem (Inequality) is that it simple states that no theory of local hidden variables can explain the results of QM experiments. |
As I said, to reject Bell's inequalities, you either have to reject the hidden variables, locality, or realism.
| Quote: |
| As for realism - MWI is an example of a system which maintains philosophical reality (and, incidentally, locality) and still conforms to Bell's Inequality |
MWI is local and realistic, but rejects premise (3) - specifically, "counterfactual definiteness" the ability to speak meaningfully about the state of the system unless it is observed.
| Quote: |
| Perspective is irrelevant since the creation of alternative universes is triggered by a quantum 'junction' and is completely independent of the observer. |
As I understand it: In the relative state formulation we regard two universes as splitting when the entropy increases so significantly that it is not feasible way to recombine them. Entropy is a measure of the observer's lack of knowledge about a system. In the MWI, the total wavefunction of the universe is always pure. It is only from an observers perspective that there is splitting, measurement or decoherence.
| Quote: |
| The fringe pattern disappears, yes? |
Yes, as I said before, measurements in quantum mechanics necessarily have a back-action on the system which is being measured. You measure the path and you'll disturb the system. That's back-action for you, or as Indi called it "quantum fairies".
The Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation which is consistent with experiment. In the MWI interpretation, the camera would actually be in a superposition state. The camera's click does not collapse the state which is always pure. It is only when correlations between the camera and an observer develop (ie. they hear the click) that the observer can say anything meaningful about whether interference occurred or not.
Penrose is one of the leading advocates of consciousness causing collapse. I don't subscribe to this view, but if you look to Penrose as an authority, then maybe you should consider it.
I'm largely agnostic on interpretation. What I don't like is people ridiculing quantum mechanics.
The real question here is, why don't you stand up to Indi when he starts ridiculing quantum mechanics? Why not point out to Indi that his view is a local hidden variable model? Why not point out that "eye-ons" are actually photons, or that "quantum fairies" as Indi puts it do collapse interference patterns. Why not point out that Bohmian mechanics is non-local when Indi claims that QM must necessarily be local? Why not say something about macroscopic superpositions when Indi denies they exist - for example in BECs or superconductors? Or maybe you could point out that large cat states have now been generated in the lab - and that quantum optics are looking at "breeding" even larger cats from smaller ones. Alternatively you could describe spin echo experiments. That, my friend, is real science.
Last edited by nopaniers on Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:55 pm; edited 1 time in total | Bikerman wrote: |
| My understanding is that this happens when the beam detector is switched on, NOT when an observation is made, and since the thing can be switched on without any human intervention, as in the above case, and without any correlating measurement being consciously made, then surely you must acknowledge a functional/operational difference between measurement and observation? Measurement is performed mechanistically by the beam detector which does not require any conscious intervention at all. Observation is completely different as, by definition it requires an observer and this observer is normally assumed to be a sentient human being. Indi's point was, I believe, that the distinction is crucial and non-interchangable. I tend to agree. |
Precisely. If it were true that observation was required to collapse the wavefunction, then either the results will not show a collapse or somehow the universe will roll back and "correct" itself in order for the results to show a collapse when they are finally observed. But we know that unobserved experiments do show a collapse, therefore only the second possibility can be. Which means that if observation causes collapse in that manner, the universe must be continually going back and "fudging" itself in order to always appear consistent. To me, that sounds a little silly, and certainly violates the idea that information cannot travel backwards (ie, causality). Which brings us back to the idea that collapse occurs whenever there is an interaction, not when there is an observation.
Or to use Schrödinger's cat experiment, slightly modified by replacing the cat with a stopwatch connected to the detector that stops when the emission is detected.... if the wavefunction collapse requires an observer, then what will the stopwatch say when the box is opened (assuming the emission occurred)? On the other hand, if the wavefunction collapse does not require an observer, the stopwatch will show what time it collapsed... even though no one outside the box will know until it is opened. For the outside observers, the wavefunction remains a superposition of states until the moment that it is opened. | Quote: |
| But we know that unobserved experiments do show a collapse, therefore only the second possibility can be. |
Unobserved experiments show precisely nothing. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | But we know that unobserved experiments do show a collapse, therefore only the second possibility can be. |
Unobserved experiments show precisely nothing. |
You have just put manufacturers of data recording equipment all around the world out of business.
And managed to piss off every scientific experimenter alive, to boot. No more will it be possible to set up an experiment and come back in the morning to check the results! Because apparently if the experiment is not observed... nothing will happen. That means even an experiment that takes weeks will require an experimenter to sit and watch the data, or else there will be no data. Right? | Quote: |
| No more will it be possible to set up an experiment and come back in the morning to check the results. |
That sure sounds like an observation to me. | Quote: |
| Or to use Schrödinger's cat experiment, slightly modified by replacing the cat with a stopwatch connected to the detector that stops when the emission is detected.... if the wavefunction collapse requires an observer, then what will the stopwatch say when the box is opened (assuming the emission occurred)? On the other hand, if the wavefunction collapse does not require an observer, the stopwatch will show what time it collapsed... even though no one outside the box will know until it is opened. For the outside observers, the wavefunction remains a superposition of states until the moment that it is opened. |
No. The stopwatch would also be in a superposition, recording all possible times at which the particle could have decayed. Then when the box was opened, the observer would measure the time the particle decayed, never the time the box opened. That is true in every interpretation of quantum mechanics. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | No more will it be possible to set up an experiment and come back in the morning to check the results. |
That sure sounds like an observation to me. |
^_^; So, if i leave a building full of equipment observing a quantum process unattended over the weekend... the entire building is in some kind of indeterminate non-coherent state until someone shows up the next morning to observe the results of the experiment? What if i have a whole city block's worth of equipment recording the process while vacant? The entire block is in a non-coherent state?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Or to use Schrödinger's cat experiment, slightly modified by replacing the cat with a stopwatch connected to the detector that stops when the emission is detected.... if the wavefunction collapse requires an observer, then what will the stopwatch say when the box is opened (assuming the emission occurred)? On the other hand, if the wavefunction collapse does not require an observer, the stopwatch will show what time it collapsed... even though no one outside the box will know until it is opened. For the outside observers, the wavefunction remains a superposition of states until the moment that it is opened. |
No. The stopwatch would also be in a superposition, recording all possible times at which the particle could have decayed. Then when the box was opened, the observer would measure the time the particle decayed, never the time the box opened. That is true in every interpretation of quantum mechanics. |
The devil's in the details. The stopwatch would be in a superposition state from the frame of reference of anything that has not interacted with the stopwatch - which would be anything outside of the box. From the frame of reference of the stopwatch, it has seen the wavefunction collapse and is in a known state. An experimenter in the box who could see the stopwatch and/or particle detector would have the same frame of reference. An experiment or measuring device outside of the box would not have a collapsed wavefunction, and would record a superposition state.
Or do you still insist that because the experimenter in the box is a conscious observer, he somehow creates some kind of consciousness interaction that collapses the wavefunction that is not present when the watch is in the box alone?WARNING - THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY LONG POSTING
If you don't want to read a very long article on QM then this might be one to skip
Disclaimer1
I would like to say first that 'wave function collapse' is one of my most hated phrases and I normally avoid it like the plague.
That will not, however, be possible in this posting, so I apologise to those of a sensitive disposition and hope they soon regain their appetite and strength. I also solemnly vow, in the presence of any physicists out there, that I will not attempt to use this power for personal gain, wealth, glory or fame. I shall, rather, attempt to harness the terrible power of the phrase for the good of mankind in general, in the cherished hope that everybody will one day forget the damn phrase was ever coined and stop repeating it like a mystic mantra every time they don't understand something.
Disclaimer2
I am not a physicist, or even a real scientist. Consequently anything I write is likely to be wildly inaccurate, partial and poorly researched. Please remember that you were warned.
(Everything I write is, of course, actually comprehensively researched by a team of journalists, editors and other staff from the major newspapers in the UK - so it is, as I said, likely to be complete pants.
Disclaimer3
Previous posters have endeavoured to show that reality is a result of consciousness acting on quantum superposition to produce deterministic and observable reality as we know it. Given that this is true, you are warned that anything in this posting that you disagree with is, logically, the result of your own subconscious mind deliberately picking a fight with your consciousness. This is obvious, since it is logically undeniable that the reality you have collapsed for yourself is product of your consciousness and your consciousness is hardly likely to collapse a reality that it doesn't agree with, is it? You are, therefore, urged to immediately collapse the wave function of a good psychiatrist if you should come across anything in this posting that :-
a) you did not already know - clearly this is a result of the imagination trying to assert it's rights with the consciousness since the consciousness already knows what is in this posting. Treatment for this involves watching Big Brother episodes, back to back, until all traces of imagination are wiped from the conscious mind. Care should be taken, of course, not to exceed the recommended BB maximum dosage of 5 minutes per calendar year, since this can result in internal bleeding, mood swings and might even cause your conscious mind to rebel completely and collapse the wave function of a sledgehammer in superposition with the screen of the TV.
b) you disagree with - as already mentioned this is clearly the result of an inner conflict between conscious and unconscious mind. Recommended treatment is a complete Super-ego-rectumy which involves surgical repositioning of your super-ego in the rectum to teach it not to be such a pain in the ass. Alternatively you could just select another superpositional posting from the quantum flux and collapse it on-top of this one - sooner or later the unconscious mind will get tired and give in.
c) You cannot understand. This is very serious and indicative of a severe mental condition. Since your consciousness chose this posting to collapse, and since it now refuses to understand it when it was responsible for choosing it to start with, it follows logically that your own consciousness has turned on itself. Without treatment the condition will rapidly deteriorate to the first stages of EastEnders within days, Coronation Street follows soon after and, in really serious cases, Neighbours can go septic producing a nasty outbreak of Brookside. The recommended treatment is to immediately collapse the wave function of yourself. but with, of course, a higher eigenvalue, and then give yourself a damn good talking to.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| MWI is local and realistic, but rejects premise (3) - specifically, "counter factual definiteness" the ability to speak meaningfully about the state of the system unless it is observed. |
Hang on...the 3 premises you previously defined were - hidden variables, locality and realism. If MWI is realistic and maintains locality then where did this 'counter factual definiteness suddenly spring from? Surely the third plank would be hidden variables wouldn't it. However, even if I accept this new premise - which of course I will - it seems to me that the argument remains flawed and must inevitably fall.
First, though, a semantic point which I think needs to be cleared up. Counterfactual has a specific meaning in language/semantics which is not the one used here I suspect, so I think it is probably best to avoid confusing things further by using this particular term and simply agree to a different term. Can I suggest we use 'deterministic' instead? I think this is possibly closer to your intended meaning, but please feel free to say if this is not so and by all means choose a different term - I mean only to be helpful here, I'm not point scoring.
Now to the specific - realism does NOT imply determinism and determinism (the ability to speak meaningfully about things before measuring them) is not implicit in general relativity - ie the normal, macro universe which we live in and which we, most of us, regard as real and solid. The simplest illustration of this is the behaviour of a dice (say a 6 sided one - a D6).
If you spin a D6 do you know in advance what it will land on? No, of course you don't. Can you even say anything at all sensible about the outcome before the throw itself (the measurement, if you will)? No, you can't say anything useful at all - other than to state the obvious by listing the possible outcomes (1-6). Hmm...so is the dice real? Yes, we would say it was. Is the act of spinning the dice a 'real' act? Again I would think that most people would say it was.
Reality, therefore, does not imply, or even require, determinism in it's components. Many events/phenomenon which we would all recognise as real are inherently or practically indeterminate - some because of their complexity and some because they are intrinsically probabilistic or even chaotic in nature. Examples are numerous and easy to recognise - in fact many aspects of our 'real' world are partially or wholly indeterminate. Given this, I cannot see how we could usefully adopt this new measure at all and I suggest we stick to the previous 3 - hidden variables, locality and 'realism'.
| "Nopaniers wrote: |
| As I understand it: In the relative state formulation we regard two universes as splitting when the entropy increases so significantly that it is not feasible way to recombine them. Entropy is a measure of the observer's lack of knowledge about a system. In the MWI, the total wave function of the universe is always pure. It is only from an observers perspective that there is splitting, measurement or decoherence. |
I agree with the last bit, sort of. There is no actual wave function collapse according to classical MWI (that is, in fact, it's main attraction for many people). The splitting occurs, the measurement occurs, but the wave-function does not collapse; instead a number of different worlds are spawned such that each possible outcome of a quantum 'collapse' actually occurs in one such world. There are, however, many things I disagree with here.
Firstly another semantic point. We need to define terms a bit more rigorously if any sense is to emerge. In Everett's original MWI there is only 1 UNIVERSE which comprises an indeterminate and expanding number of WORLDS (of, incidentally, equal size unless QG turns out to be correct).
A world is spawned every time a quantum superpositional state is 'collapsed' to a deterministic state (as described in the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI from now on), and this means that all 'non-zero probability' outcomes of the quantum 'collapse' actually occur as real spacetime events in one of the worlds.
On to the next point about entropy:-this brings back some happy memories for me so forgive me if I ramble for a page or so...you can always skip to the next para
You seem to have taken the standard 'information theory' version of entropy, which is fundamentally probabilistic, and applied it generally to the whole of physics - i.e. to large-scale 'physical' systems which are normally described using the classical thermodynamic definition of entropy. The thermodynamic definition of entropy is mathematical, deterministic and unambiguous and comprises a simple differential equation with clearly defined scope.
It is expressed as follows:- dS = δQ / T
[where Q is the heat absorbed during a reversible state change, T is the temp at which it occurs (absolute) and S is entropy].
Informational Entropy, on the other hand, is defined as : 
[where H is entropy - here meaning the amount of information lost before reception during a communication - k is Boltzmann's constant and p is the probability that a particular piece of information was transmitted in the first place]
I cannot show convincingly that this interchange of the two definitions is inherently wrong, since my math is not sufficient to the task, besides which many real scientists and mathematicians are already hotly engaged in this debate. Instead I will recount a student experiences which seems apposite here in the hope that if it does not convince it may at least entertain for a moment or two...
I attended a lecture on this very issue (information theory, entropy, and it's applicability, scope and validity in science generally) many years ago (1980ish). The lecture was given by an Eastern European visiting Professor (with an unfortunately profound and difficult accent). It was aimed at the final year mathematics students (I was then a first year Materials Scientists - Coventry Poly 1980 (just looked it up). I didn't graduate from the course, but that is another story for another time..
At this time I was very interested in information theory, having read something in passing about it, so I decided to attend this lecture thinking it would be much more interesting than the 'lab' I was supposed to be attending -(during which we would generally, and for the umpteenth time, stretch a small slug of metal, using a huge mechanical contraption, designed for that very purpose, until the slug broke. We would spend the remaining time of the 4 hour lab drawing phase diagrams for the metal concerned and calculating different measures of strength, ductility, hardness etc etc...all of which I found extremely boring.
{break for the loo during which I will try to locate my old lecture notes}
(Hurrah - I'm happy to relate that, after a quick trip upstairs, I still have the lecture notes I was seeking. I was a bit of a swot in those days and took reams of notes - which I've just dug out from the attic. Most of them are either completely or partially illegible now, partly because the paper and ink have suffered, partly because I am no longer actively studying this area and have forgotten much of the important basics, and partly because I decided, after this one lecture, that information theory was really interesting but was way beyond my abilities in math and so never wrote up my notes properly. Looking down I'm amazed that my writing was so neat at the time? Wow...years of teaching and report writing have reduced my once stylish copperplate handwriting to a semi-legible scrawl....anyway, I digress..onwards....)
"The mathematician Professor who was lecturing to the mathematician students was very disparaging to physicists in general, sometimes very unprofessionally discourteous and downright rude to his colleagues (not present of course) in the Coventry Poly physics department. This was, at that time, both normal and mutual. Mathematicians all hated the physicists and regarded them as little better than common tradesmen, obsessed with practical and ultimately un-lovely problems, mechanics with white coats. They despised the fact that physicists used 'their' wonderfully beautiful and complex formulations like a spanner to attack real-world problems, rather than appreciating the beauty and self contained wonder simply for it's own sake. Physicists to them had no understanding or sense of beauty at all - peasants and philistines the lot of them.
The physicists, in turn, regarded mathematicians as potentially promising minds who had gone on a silly ego trip and got lost in an meaningless unproductive and ultimately useless game inventing stupid and completely abstract forms and systems of math which solved no problems, modelled no real systems and which only the mathematicians could play. This was, of course, exactly what the mathematicians were actually like, and wanted to be like - they took great pride in ensuring that people knew their latest project was very unlikely to have any real-world applications, all being well.
So the lecture progressed. There were lots of jokes about how physicists have to hit something before they register it, and how physicists only like things which they can smash, blow-up, split or fuse together because they never properly grew up and are still basically kids with expensive toys. (If you actually want some fairly good physicist jokes you'll find a link at the end of this marathon). Needless to say this was very well received by the students, laughter was loud and frequent. His general thrust in the lecture seemed to be the Jaynes approach to linking thermodynamic and informational entropy. He didn't spend much time on thermodynamics and physical applications thereof, most of the lecture was in the form of equations, expressions and boolean truth/logic tables derived from or related to the Informational entropy expression. Whilst I could easily follow the boolean stuff, being even then a computer 'hobbyist', I found much of the other math largely incomprehensible (which I suppose should not be surprising since it was a lecture aimed at final year Math marvels, not first year metal-benders).
The important points, though, I think are :
1) Informational entropy is, at best, only related to thermodynamic entropy. It is not an alternative way of saying the same thing. Neither is it simply a different technique for examining the same problems and/or phenomena. Even the partisan Professor was clear about that point.
There is still debate and argument amongst scientists about how comparable the two definitions of entropy are, and I am not competent to offer anything other than opinion based on very little theoretical understanding; but I am pretty sure that they are not inter-changeable, and I would go further and say that in many applications Shannon Entropy is neither useful nor informative when applied to macro physical systems (rather than information flow which is where it was born to be).
My math has improved greatly over the last months but, I am ashamed to admit that I still can't discuss this with any rigour or pretence of expertise, so I have to rely on the bits I do understand and the comment, opinion and work of others more qualified and knowledgeable in the field. I will finish, therefore, with this on the matter - if you can show me that Shannon entropy is a useful way of modelling entropy in large-scale physical dynamic systems then I'd be happy to try and follow you should the math be tricky, or read up should it prove beyond me. Otherwise I think this is something I will remain sceptical about until someone can show me otherwise, and my own feeling is that Informational Entropy is not particularly useful and certainly not advantageous when considering macro physical systems rather than informational flows and transactions. If this upsets any scientists then please feel free to email me, but be gentle with me, I beg you.....
Your second point - that universes are spawned when entropy is such that it is not feasible to recombine them, doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't understand how entropy figures here at all. If the worlds are not split to start with then it requires no energy to recombine them. If they are split then I can't understand how you COULD recombine them, let alone guess how one could arrive at a measure of the energy needed to do so....it all seems completely irrational to me...maybe I've missed the point?
One problem is that there are many MWI theories and derivatives of it, and some of them are contradictory, whilst others offer very different models to the original Everett one. The basic ones that I know are Everett's original MWI - which says very little at all apart from outlining how wave function collapse could be avoided by adopting a system of relative state physics, next came DeWitt's with a more complete and expanded reading of Everett's work - this is in fact what most people now think of as the original MWI. Then we get Albert and Loewer's Many Minds extension of MWI and finally Lockwood's different Many Minds version of the 'theory'. (I have no doubt there are many other variants and developments which I know nothing of).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#3.3
| Nopaniers wrote: |
| Yes, as I said before, measurements in quantum mechanics necessarily have a back-action on the system which is being measured. You measure the path and you'll disturb the system. That's back-action for you, or as Indi called it "quantum fairies". |
Nononono...this is disingenuous I fear. Your point, and the crux of this whole thread, was much more specific and prescriptive than a simple statement of the obvious. You said specifically and clearly that.. | Nopaniers wrote: |
| "Measurement can be viewed as an update of an observer's belief about the measured observable." |
That is completely different from a mere recapitulation of the more well known and mostly uncontested features of QM and the role of measurement. It goes much further than the basic principle that measurement affects quantum states - we all know that measurement effects results in quantum systems - we learned that on page 1 in the basic primer. Your point has much wider implications and ramifications, and I fundamentally disagreed with it at the time you made it (as I do still).
Since, however, Indi had taken up the issue before I replied (and was following the same sort of line I would have done myself), I decided it would be redundant to repeat the obvious and decided to opt out at that point until I could usefully add to the discussion again or until it died.
It appears that the time to re-enter is now, whether the contribution will be worth it remains to be seen....but here I am....
Indi's point in this whole thread was, (as mine would have been and now is), that you consistently interchange observation with measurement and this is completely INVALID and leads to fallacy. The two phenomena are not necessarily linked in space-time at all, let alone are they actually congruent terms for the same basic phenomenon. Measurement may involve a conscious entity or it may not - the important point being that IT MAY NOT.
Under the CI, the Wave function of the particle in question, described by the Schroedinger equation, collapses into a deterministic (definite) state when the system is measured such that the potential path or state of the particle is reduced to on option rather than two. Put simply when the measurement rules out path B for the particle, the particle is then found to be in only on path A, whereas before it was happily acting as though it were going down both paths simultaneously. OK - that is QM101 for the bottom sets....nothing new or even controversial there I hope. The CI, incidentally, has nothing to say about what happens before the 'collapse' other than it is fundamentally unknowable and therefore not a fit subject for science. Many scientists, however, disagree.
You, however, have chosen to interpret this effect in what I consider to be an idiosyncratic, and, I'm sorry to say, an insupportable manner. By adding the further assuming that measurement must involve consciousness and that, therefore, the outcome of any measurement is dependant on consciousness (meaning that all quantum 'collapse' is the result of conscious observation) you push the interpretations of QM way further than CI, MWI, the Von Neumann 'measurement', the MMI version of MWI, or, in fact, any other mainstream version of QM that I know of.
I had actually honestly believed that this whole point had been conclusively proven, and that you had accepted it as such, by the time of my last posting and Indi's previous ones.
I thought we had agreed that the interference fringes of the 2-slit experiment appear and disappear when the particle detector (or other measuring device) changes from ON to OFF. I thought we further agreed that this is REGARDLESS of observation (i.e. even if nobody EVER comes into the room and looks at the state of the detector, the fringes will happily continue to appear and disappear as the detector changes state from on to off). The 'reductio ad absurdum' riposte that you fired back - (the point being that science requires observation and without it there is no science) is certainly true, indeed, I would say. is a truism, it also completely sidesteps the point rather than offering a genuinely salient point in this matter. The actual time, or indeed whether at all, the observer returns to the equipment is not important to the overall point in question. The point is that the 'quantum collapse' occurs when the measurement is made and if there is no observer present at that time it makes not a blind bit of difference. Do you actually accept this or was I mistaken when I thought it was agreed? If you don't accept this then there is little point in continuing the general debate because that is a crucial and potentially irreconcilable point of difference and if you hold to it I can see no way of progressing the debate beyond that point other than to offer experimental, theoretical and logical evidence to show that it is simply wrong and relying on sense to prevail.
Let's proceed on the basis that this is indeed agreed. Now, further to the above, if I happen to be sat at the back of the room where the particle detector is busy switching itself on and off, then I will, unsurprisingly, see interference patterns appear and disappear on the display screen behind the slits - in strict accordance with the predictions of QM that this should be so. This will happen regardless of my presence in the room and without interfering with the quantum process itself at all.
In this I have adopted a classical OBSERVER role - I am watching, but I am not measuring anything (other than reflected photons) and I therefore in no way influence the quantum events in play. Can we agree to this point perhaps?
Now, it is accepted, indeed it is a statement of the bleedin obvious, that actual measurement of a quantum state DOES indeed 'interact' or influence/interfere/effect - whatever your choice of words, we know what iis being said. The gist of it is that a phenomenon that was previously only describable in probability terms as a wave function, suddenly becomes a real-life particle at a definite point in spacetime and with definite quantum properties (depending on the measurement). This happens as soon as we measure the particle with our particle detector or other kit.
There is no argument here at all (unless I missed something)-since this is, as I said, page 1 in the primer. I'll actually attempt some math on this lower down if my nerve holds.
Regardless of all of this wordplay, the central, critical, overriding and key point remains the same as it was :- that there is a difference between observation and measurement, that the consequent difference between observing a quantum state and measuring it means that one will influence the outcome and the other will not (in most cases, it is possible, of course to observe in an intrusive manner and thereby become entangled with the system which would, of course, be like measuring it. It is both possible, and relatively straightforward, however, to avoid this.
You have argued there is, in fact, no difference between measurement and observation. Indeed you take it even further and argue that the observers actual belief is the same as measurement, presumably regardless of the truth or otherwise of such a belief. In short you are arguing that consciousness is THE sole influence in quantum events which leads, by short cut, to the view that the universe is entirely a produce of our minds and has no external existence outside human consciousness. This, in itself, is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt and is, ultimately, entirely possible (though I don't share this view myself).
The point is that you have got to that position in an entirely fallacious manner by simply redefining one of the terms of the expression (observation) to fit a predetermined solution (measurement). I call this sharp practice and certainly not good science.
All the while Indi and I both scream that there is a difference, that the difference is well understood by all, and, in frustration, ultimately that it is actually bleedin obvious as well as correct.
| Nopaniers wrote: |
| No. The stopwatch would also be in a superposition, recording all possible times at which the particle could have decayed. Then when the box was opened, the observer would measure the time the particle decayed, never the time the box opened. That is true in every interpretation of quantum mechanics. |
Really? That is the first I have heard of it, so I would dispute the fact that this is a universal prediction of QM - unless I have missed the plot completely (entirely possible). I am intrigued by this. How is this miracle, in fact, possible.
Lets go slowly. The watch is in a super positional state (which means that the particle -OK then, 'the Watch' [this is a bad bad example added to an originally bad analogy which casts more shadow than light on the matter - I wish Schroedinger had just shot the cat and kept quiet about the whole sorry story ] anyway, let's go on) this watch has a probability of being in several positions/states according to the well understood wave function. We can predict (with amazing accuracy) what the probabilities are that the watch will appear at a particular position or manifest a particular quantum state when it finally emerges from the quantum unknown and becomes a whole set tangible properties which we can, if we like, measure (confusingly these measurables are technically called 'observables' - as if we didn't have problems enough with terms).
Now, according to some interpretations, the particle/watch actually exists in all the possible positions/states until it is measured, at which point it 'collapses' into one point/position.
According to others it doesn't do anything of the sort and the act of measuring it simple confirms where it would have been all the time anyway (a dying viewpoint but nonetheless one with supporters).
According to yet other interpretations of QM a plethora of new worlds spring into being at the moment of measurement and the watch actually appears in each world in the position that it could have theoretically appeared in this world, according to the wave function, but actually didn't. This might involve a very large number of worlds in some cases, not just a simple bifurcation into two.
Then again, according to a small tribe of Peruvian nose-flautists, the price of nose flute reeds has increased something shocking over the last year and who gives a toss about watches in any case - the damn watch should make it's mind up where it wants to be and STAY THERE.
The point I am making is that there are many possible interpretations. Now, back to the case of the magic watch.
According to MWI theory, different particles exist in all possible positions/states where there was a non-zero probability that they could have appeared here in this world. Each watch actually appears materially and observably in it's own separate world at the moment of measurement/collapse. Which one makes all the measurements?
For a watch to record anything, of course, it must first have physicality - it must actually exist as a set of cogs, wheels, springs and levers. The alternative is to regard each 'recording' as a probability in the overall superpositional state, but then the watch can only 'collapse' to one state in this particular world and what appears in other worlds is not the same watch. Our watch only has one set of hands. Where does it record the nearly infinite number of potential times that the particle decay could have occurred at? How does it record this? When, indeed, does it record this - how much lag is there between the time at the particle and the time recorded by the watch...presumably it depends on distance, but, no, hang on, entanglement is not bound by the limits of Relativity is it? So it can manifest instantly. There again an entangled system does not actually record anything at all does it? Surely that is against the rules and would be an example of a dreaded 'hidden variable' wouldn't it? Surely an entangled system merely collapses into a particular state and other particles in the entanglement all adopt the same position or quantum state being measured in the particle in the lab. They do this at the very instant that the one in the lab is actually measured with no lag and regardless of where they are in relation to each other in spacetime. The whole process is unaffected by considerations such as Relativity and the light barrier, not to mention being impervious to inconvenient barriers or blockages which might have come between the individual particles since their original entanglement in the lab. A row of houses - no problem; a small planet - piece of cake; 24 large galaxies and 2 intervening billion-light-year dust clouds? A doddle.
That is, I think we must agree, a lot to ask from a watch - particularly a Seconda Sports Watch which cost £9.99 at Woolworth in last weeks sale. Now you also want the poor watch to record every possible instant that it's partners in entanglement MIGHT have been measured, regardless of where they were at the time and regardless of how they are going to let the watch actually know that they could have been measured if that physicist hadn't dropped his magnets at that exact moments and, lookout here comes a lab technician with an Ouzi 9mm particle zapper...
Am I getting across here....? This is pure gibberish isn't it? Please tell me it is....
OK...my fun is over (I mean this to be read in the same good humour I am writing it in, btw, it is not intended as a sarcastic put down or attack, it's just that irony is irresistible sometimes and this is such a time. QM is fundamentally weird in many respects and nobody can fail to be bamboozled or completely flummoxed sometimes when trying to pick a way thought it..
OK..Seriously now, how could the watch in the CI of QM possibly record and store anything, let alone several readings, whilst at the same time having no detectable physical existence and also having possible an almost infinite number of existences in potentia. How does it do this in it's time of 'non-deterministic' existence as a probability wave before the wave function collapses? I would have thought that any possible method of recording involves some THING being changed in some MANNER by some PHENOMENON. Since we have neither THING nor, in fact PHENOMENON, then how the hell does the watch record anything...Is the watch now conscious as well? Does it remember? This sounds like gibberish to me so I hope I am missing something......
The problem with the Cat experiment is that it was a bad exemplar when chosen all those years ago, and it is still a bad exemplar now. Once you start to conflate issues as it does (mixing micro-quantum effects with macro-relativistic systems which are way beyond the size at which they could be influenced by quantum events in anything but the most unlikely of circumstances (and by unlikely I mean *really* unlikely, like wait until the universe ends, spin it up a couple more times and wait, and maybe in a few hundred replays we might see a watch physically affected by a quantum event. It's not going to happen on demand just with a cat for an audience, that is for sure. The problem with poor exemplars like this is that the result is bound to be problematic, even before we start. It is highly unlikely to be very illuminating and much more likely to confuse and muddy the few facts that we already know rather than revealing any new insights.
We know that decoherence means that quantum superposition cannot be scaled-up much beyond atomic sizes because it will inevitable be 'collapsed' long before by interaction with the environment. Yes, I do know that in some special and tightly controlled circumstances it is possible for quantum effects to manifest at a larger macro scale - the normal examples being those of superconductivity and super fluidity. The fact remains, however, that quantum coherence is incredibly delicate and easily destroyed and the practical upshot is that quantum effects are normally limited to objects at the Planck scale of measurement and certainly not at the metric scales we call home.. The idea that a watch could occupy not just one quantum superposition but a huge number is, frankly, ridiculous to the point of raving. The watch occupies NO superpositional state at ANY time. Nor can it. Superposition is only possible on the sub-atomic scale and requires that the particle concerned have no interaction with other particles which would cause it to decohere. The notion that the umpteen gazillion atoms in a watch could all be superpositional is irrational and plainly contradicts basic QM as well as common sense.
If you want a more technical and 'physics literate' theory to play with then I'll try to summarise one particular interpretation of Decoherence that is fairly current (I don't necessarily, or in fact actually, agree with this, but it is an interesting avenue).
Alternative View of QM from a decoherence standpoint resulting in the conclusion that there are no observables in QM before the wave-function 'collapses' at all.
Measurement involves diagonal interaction in the Eigenstates of the state being measured (it also requires, of course, the existence of a measurable to start with - which is by no means a given).
For the following you will have to read my ø as being omega (I can't generate a proper omega on the keyboard).
In QM terms - assume a system has a finite number of orthogonal states (represented by |n>) . The measurement is made by moving a pointer from it's initial state (represented by |ø0>) to it's final state (represented by |øn>)
The interaction is therefore 
which is normally re-expressed as the Hamiltonian as follows:
OK? This is fairly clear and is not in dispute..
This is not enough, however, since the pointer itself must be dynamically stable (it is no use if the pointer is not stable against decoherence - we would then measure nothing).
Representing the environment as E, this second requirement is that the pointer states must be only passively recognised by the environment. This can be written in the form:
Again this is obvious and non-controversial.
The point is that both requirements must be met for any measurement and implicit in these 2 terms is the fact that the observables may not, themselves, have any existence in any operational sense at all - in other words, QM does not require the existence of observables at all. THIS is the main thrust of this particular take on decoherence. The message here is that the CI (which actually says almost nothing other than 'we don't know and don't think it is possible to know') is probably mistaken in the assumption that there are observables and that the Heisenberg picture need not and may well not have any fundamental status (ie it may not be based in 'reality' since before the measurement there is actually nothing to be uncertain of).
This is one line of attack in current physics, by no means the only one, of course.
| Quote: |
| The CI is not the only interpretation which is consistent with experiment. In the MWI interpretation, the camera would actually be in a superposition state. The camera's click does not collapse the state which is always pure. It is only when correlations between the camera and an observer develop (i.e.. they hear the click) that the observer can say anything meaningful about whether interference occurred or not. |
What is this ‘pure’ notion referring to? I presume you mean that the camera would exist only as a probability function according to the Schroedinger wave-function and would never ‘collapse’ into an actual deterministic existence? That would possibly be the case (though I think not) if it were possible that the camera could ever exist in a superpositional state in the first place which it can’t. In general what you are trying to describe here is the MMI theory of Albert/Louwer rather than the Everett MWI theory. MMI theory was an attempt to solve one of the major problems with MWI which is, simply put, it cannot do probabilities and statistics at all, it's completely blind to all probability sums across the boardl - this is easy to demonstrate. Since MWI specifies that the quantum state of the universe is unchanging, it follows that probability cannot exist unless it is a result of ignorance. Consider, for example, a particle in a superpositional state that has a 1/3 chance of ‘collapsing’ into (say) a spin state of -1/2. MMI postulates that it is the human mind which distinguished between the different worlds of the MWI
| Quote: |
| Penrose is one of the leading advocates of consciousness causing collapse. I don't subscribe to this view, but if you look to Penrose as an authority, then maybe you should consider it. |
I am familiar with some of Penrose's work on Quantum Consciousness but my take on his work is very different. He is working the other way around from what I understand - i.e. he is trying to work out a quantum theory of consciousness, not a consciousness theory of quantum. He holds it centrally to this work that the human consciousness is not simply a calculator of any sort and, further, that consciousness in general is not replicable by any system which is 'only' based on calculation or algorithmic processing. The reasoning for this is quite rigorous and revolves around several theories in math and science - notably Gödel's theorem (which basically posits that any system (including math) contains self evident truths which are not derivable from the basic axioms and require more than a rule following or algorithmic approach to understand - indeed they can never be understood by an intelligence that is restricted to algorithmic processing. It is a fairly strong argument but not without critics.
He has done some recent work in an effort to work out how the brain might be subject to quantum mechanical influences - notably on very tiny 'tubules' in the brain structure which, he thinks, could be the site of quantum interactions. He is basically saying that the physiological process underlying a given thought, in consciousness, may initially involve a number of superposed quantum states, and each of these states performs a calculation a kind. When the differences in the distribution of mass and energy between the states reach a certain level - determined by gravitic forces - the states collapse into a single state, causing measurable and possibly non-local changes in the structure of the brain. This physical event correlates with a mental one: the comprehension of a new song, for example, or the sudden impulse to do something.
| Quote: |
I'm largely agnostic on interpretation. What I don't like is people ridiculing quantum mechanics.
The real question here is, why don't you stand up to Indi when he starts ridiculing quantum mechanics? Why not point out to Indi that his view is a local hidden variable model? Why not point out that "eye-ons" are actually photons, or that "quantum fairies" as Indi puts it do collapse interference patterns. Why not point out that Bohmian mechanics is non-local when Indi claims that QM must necessarily be local? Why not say something about macroscopic superposition when Indi denies they exist - for example in BECs or superconductors? Or maybe you could point out that large cat states have now been generated in the lab - and that quantum optics are looking at "breeding" even larger cats from smaller ones. Alternatively you could describe spin echo experiments. That, my friend, is real science. |
I’m not going to answer this last set of points in any detail because Indi is more than capable of doing so and I’m not here to act as cheerleader for anyone.
I will instead continue my rambling on the general theme – specifically the theme of abuse, anger and name calling found all over the internet and mercifully very rare on Frih. I wish to be very CLEAR here, I am NOT aiming the following paragraphs at ANYONE specific, absolutely not at anyone using Frih – even those who I have had problems with previously. This is not a personal venting of spleen and is not to be understood as such. I find the general level of behaviour and courtesy on Frih to be good, way above average in my experience.
I wish to speak here of a type of internet user who is invariably a rather sad character, often very lonely, sometimes marginal special needs or ‘care in the community’ in their abilities and social interactions. Such posters are often found on the net, because they are, more than anything, desperate to be taken seriously, to talk to other people, and to be seen as something other than a sad, lonely, failure in life. Such people often see an opportunity in internet communities to pretend their real lives away, and be someone better and more interesting than they are in real life.
I have no major problem with that – I am an anarchistic at heart and I believe that people should be allowed to conduct their lives anyway they wish, with the only limits being those required to protect others and moderate any potential damage to them that might be inflicted. I have also dealt with this type of person socially and professionally for many years in many arenas – from teaching special needs in schools and colleges, through to being finally driven away last year from my regular hangout on the BBC science-boards by the sheer numbers of this type of poster. You could, therefore, say that I know of which I now speak.
I have been a user of the internet for over 25 years – since long before the web was even thought of – and, I admit, I was somewhat aghast as the 90s progressed to find that the civilised and academically focused system of intellectual and courteous discussion that I had grown to love, had, within a couple of short years, started to become a medium for unrestrained greed and unconstrained stupidity and ignorance. This was, looking back, a very elitist and condescending view, as I now realise, and I take no pride in the recollection. Back in the 80s, however, the rules were very different and the internet was a very different thing. It was used almost exclusively by academics since they had the only access at the time in their colleges and universities. Commercialism was completely OUT in any form. If you posted even a tiny advert for anything, no matter how polite short it might be, you stood a good chance of being mail-bombed to within an inch of your bandwidth (which, at 1200/300 baud on an Apple europlus, was extremely limited). I once woke up to find 10 copies of the bible queued on my server waiting for download because I had upset someone in a science newsgroup – to this day I don’t know what I did wrong. That would have taken my modem 2 weeks to download The system was self-policed and very conservative, I loved it.
When the web took off and the net began to change (incredibly rapidly) into what we know it to be today, I used to flame white hot venom at the type of person described above when they proudly announced their latest pseudo-science garbage under the guise of respectable science - it drove me loopy. Being fairly articulate, I was able to express my displeasure in language that left little doubt of my feelings and, frequently,a great deal of doubt about the parentage, sexual, social and personal habits and customs of the poster concerned as well as their spouses, children, pets and anyone else they might be in contact with. My wife used to say that she could often see scorch marks in the phosphor surface of my monitor after a long session on the net.
One day I was tackled by someone I respected (and I will name the person – t’was non other than Ed aka Newolder who posts here regularly). Ed pointed out, politely but in no uncertain terms, that I was little better than the trolls I was busy flaming, and that I was causing nuisance and annoyance to other posters with my flames, and I was certainly not contributing to the supposed debates which were the agreed purpose of the boards concerned. His comments really shamed me – deeply. I had previously thought that I was one of the good guys, and now here was someone whose opinion I valued telling me I was a jerk. Ed was, of course, quite right, as he usually is, and to this day I have striven mightily to change my ways. I hope and believe that posters here and in other forums which I frequent will acknowledge that I do not flame, insult or even criticise deliberately if I can avoid doing so (it isn’t always easy to ‘let it go’) and try to be polite and informative if I can.
The sad people I mentioned earlier, though, wear away at such resolve and purpose with their drip drip drip of nonsense, gibberish, pseudo bunkum, half-digested and badly regurgitated popular notions of science that was wrong when they read about it in the Sun and is so twisted by the time they come to retell it that it should certainly be found guilty if ever tried for cruelty to the facts. All the while they post this sputum, they strive to maintain their façade of knowledge, competence, expertise and intellectual bona-fides. They remain either wilfully unaware or completely unconcerned by the prospect of any real scientists reading their tripe and don’t care that such folk find them ignorant, annoying and pathetic in equal measures.
This type of poster often finds a home on a science forum and frequently will specialise in either Relativity (this is becoming less popular as the general public gradually learns little bits from the media) or Quantum Mechanics/Physics (still a firm favourite). This type of poster grabs onto QM, like a leech at a vegetarian banquet, because it fulfils two of their basic requirements. Firstly they need someone to take them seriously so that they can feel superior – this is a perfectly normal human trait and I sympathise with such feelings, I really do. The problem is that they almost inevitably know almost nothing about QM, and they are either too lazy, to stupid or fundamentally incapable of actually learning about it from the normal sources (which are plentiful and cheap/free nowadays for those who wish to learn). What they need is something which allows them appear clever and superior, to stand out from the crowd as someone who knows a thing or two. It must, however, be something either very obscure or very little understood in general, because otherwise they will quickly be found out and have to move to a new board and begin all over again.
QM is perfect for this type of poster – it is complicated enough to be little discussed amongst non scientists and, therefore, not widely understood. This allows them to bullshit to their hearts content with little chance of being called on it by someone who actually knows. It also has a major added bonus. The type of poster in question here nearly always has an agenda, belief, faith, or pet theory that they wish to push. QM is counter intuitive in many respects, and they quickly realise that it can easily be extended with a few technical sounding terms and a few hours Googling, into a wonderful umbrella of gibberish which protects their own pathetic little thoughts with an impenetrable coat of rather high quality bullshit, proof against all but the real scientist or very patient/persistent amateur. Thus they dream that their armour of technical gibberish will protect them as they strive to make people really believe that they have something important to say about the world, and dream that the people out there might, one day, be fooled into thinking a mental giant walks amongst them instead of an ignorant fool who just wants to be loved.
I will repeat once more that this is NOT aimed at a particular person – certainly not you Nopaniers, nor anyone else reading - so please don’t take it as such.
It is more of a cautionary tale about what might be. Once such posters as described here take a firm hold of a system, the next step is a gradual increase in incivility, abuse, rudeness and general bad behaviour, often from genuine posters frustrated by the gibberish. From there it is but a short step to a completely unusable system, fit only for trolls and advertising salesmen. The proof of this? Ask the science regulars of the old BBC science boards – many of them professional scientists who used to provide a fantastic resource for anyone who wanted it, free of charge, 24 hour, on demand. Any question on science would be answered or discussed in professional detail for the price of your internet connection.
Nowadays most of those good folk have left the BBC for good, worn down by the type of poster mentioned above and finally finished-off by the rank incompetence of the BBC management and the arrogant disregard and contempt they seemed to exhibit daily to their most valuable resource. Today, if the boards still run at all (I never go back) I would guess that they are troll infested swamps of religious bigotry, scientific ignorance, meaningless prattle and caustic gossip – that’s what the BBC seemed to be planning and I have no doubt they were successful. Meanwhile the ex-posters have congregated at the Science Forums (ex of Elmhurst Labs and now run by Andy from his Spanish home) and will soon be launching a complete science-focussed website in the spirit of the old BBC boards.
(This is not meant as an advert, even though I am involved in putting the new site together. I have no financial stake or any other agreements, sponsorships, nothing...nada...zilch. I will make nowt and that is fine. I work on the site because I believe in the work and the goal to take science to as wide an audience as possible – that is the only reason.
I am not yet sure when the site will be complete so please don’t pm me for more details – the link above will take you to the forums where you can ask away about that, and about anything else related to science).
The only point to this rambling monologue is to issue a heartfelt plea to all posters, particularly those with stamina enough to have endured to the end of this novella..……don’t let it happen here as well. Be polite and courteous if you can, civil and restrained if that is too much effort, and silent if both are beyond you…Please?
PS - Nopaniers - this is me at my most light-hearted and frivolous rather than me at my most sarcastic and nasty, honest. I started to reply seriously, then we had a power cut. Started again and damn me the dog mamaged to yank a power lead with his hind leg. I lost well over an hour of serious reply and decided - what the hell, this time I'll write whatever comes into my head and to hell with the consequences....
Refereences, citations and links to further materials.
Physics Jokes - http://sciencefile.org/html/index.php?module=Pagesetter&tid=6
Quantum Physics - statistical overview
Interpreting Statistics
Quantum Physics - ideas in
Quantum Consciousness - a new approach
Experiments in QM (1)
Experiments in QM (2) - 2 slit experiment Java app
Basics of Schroedinger (HyperPhysics) | Indi wrote: |
| ^_^; So, if i leave a building full of equipment observing a quantum process unattended over the weekend... the entire building is in some kind of indeterminate non-coherent state until someone shows up the next morning to observe the results of the experiment? |
As I understand it, according to the many world's interpretation the entire universe is in such a superposition state. So yes, the entire room, the entire city, other experimenters, everything is in a massive superposition state. In MWI there is no collapse, even the morning after, only the substitute the subjective experience of an observers inside the system:
| Everett wrote: |
| We shall be able to introduce into [the relative-state theory] systems which represent observers. Such systems can be conceived as automatically functioning machines (servomechanisms) possessing recording devices (memory) and which are capable of responding to their environment. The behavior of these observers shall always be treated within the framework of wave mechanics. Furthermore, we shall deduce the probabilistic assertions of Process 1 [rule 4b] as subjective appearances to such observers, thus placing the theory in correspondence with experience. |
In MWI things are only defined relative to one another - which is why the MWI interpretation is also called the relative state interpretation. The main point, as I understand it, of MWI is not that there's millions and millions of worlds. The point is that we can borrow the concept of relativity from Special Relativity and apply it to our understanding of quantum mechanics thereby getting rid of the collapse postulate. In other words, the perspective of that observer is fundamentally important.
| Quote: |
| An experiment or measuring device outside of the box would not have a collapsed wavefunction, and would record a superposition state. |
To demonstrate that such a large system is in a superposition or not would be a tremendously difficult task - involving the interference of humans and stop-watches with themselves. It cannot feasibly be performed, and it's a bit silly to suggest. However, you are absolutely right that similar (though much simpler) experiments to determine the difference between localised classical probability distributions and quantum mechanical superpositions have been performed. They have come out time and time again in favour of quantum mechanics, and not a localized classical probability distribution that you insist on.
The point is, that there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics which are all consistent with experiment.
| Quote: |
| Or do you still insist that because the experimenter in the box is a conscious observer, he somehow creates some kind of consciousness interaction that collapses the wavefunction that is not present when the watch is in the box alone? |
For your reference, my view of measurement is best summarized in what I have already said:
| nopaniers wrote: |
| I prefer a picture of decoherence, in which the system becomes entangled with a large, macroscopic, environment whose state we don't know. If you trace out the environment (again invoking the Born rule, but this time because of the incomplete knowledge of the observer about such a large environment) then you see decoherence. If, on the other hand, we can tell the state of the environment from the measurement apparatus, then you can describe it as a positive operator valued measurement. |
and
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Measurement can be viewed as an update of an observer's belief about the measured observable. |
Please don't confuse my attempts at explaining the MWI interpretation to you as "my views". You have said some fundamentally wrong things about the MWI - most notably that it doesn't depend on the perspective of an observer. You may not agree with the MWI, and clearly favour a classical local hidden variable model. That's your own perogative. But rubbishing me when I try to explain it to you is a bit silly really. | Quote: |
| Measurement can be viewed as an update of an observer's belief about the measured observable. |
Yet again you repeat this statement. Why is that ?
Let's take this right down to absolute naked essentials and see where we get to.
1) Do you believe that observation and measurement are the same thing, or are functionally the same in that they always produce the same effect on quantum systems ? It's not a trick question - I've tried to word it clearly and fairly to get to the heart with no hidden traps or trickery at all.
To start you off, I think that the notion that observation and measurement are the same thing is patently silly and completely indefensible, logically, practically, semantically, operationally and any other -ally you think might fit. It is not only wrong it is stupidly wrong, to the extent where I find it difficulty to accept that any intelligent poster - and I certainly think you are one - could possibly keep repeating this statement/assumption without fully realising that it is wrong and, therefore, the only motivation I can see would be either mule headed stubbornness or complete disregard for the debate itself and a fixation on point scoring, face saving or some similar silliness.
I really hope I am wrong here - and you may rest assured I will willingly (even gladly) admit to being so if you can just explain WHY you keep up this position rather than simply ditching it as a mistake and moving on.
It is perfectly possible that you know something I don't and that there is a deeper meaning in which the two ARE congruent - if so then please share it and I will happily acknowledge your correctness and my wrongness...no problem at all. If not then can we PLEASE put this to bed once and for all and move on - the subject is interesting and is stuck in a loop until this issue is cleared up.
If it will help, I am more than willing to 'fess-up' to any mistakes or mis-statements I have made here. I'm not aware of specific examples of the top of my head, but point any out and watch me retract with good humour and I hope good grace....I don't mind being wrong at all...honestly...it's just another way to learn....
I am not the enemy in some game of political intrigue and academic skulduggery - I'm simply an ex lecturer with an interest in science generally, physics particularly, and time enough to spend debating and exploring my interests and hopefully contributing to others who share the interest where I can....that's all.
Please select either of the two statements below and let us move on...
a) Measurement and Observation are different and you accept this
b) They are related in some important way - and please then explain how
Or select a form of words you are comfortable with - whatever, let's put this to bed PLEASE....Not much to ask - and nobody is asking for a mea-culpa breast-beating apology or other stupid macho bull - I just want to establish where the debate is, where it can go and where the issues of difference are before trying to move it on. Until this point is cleared up once and for all, then it will continue, as it has done, to infect the debate periodically and will result in complete deadlock for me if no-one else because I genuinely don't understand what you are saying with this...annoying because I really want to..
PS - I know you think I am either afraid or in some other way reluctant to challenge Indi in this thread - possibly because I haven't done so yet.
I assure you that this is not the case and the real and honest reason I have not done so is because I actually agree in very large part with what Indi has posted, and even the areas where I disagree are relatively minor and largely areas where several judgements or interpretations are possible and valid. It is therefore not worth the time to raise such issues just for the sake of an argument since to do so would detract from the more interesting and substantive e debate for the sake of what are really trivialities...You can rest assured that where there is a major substantive and relevant difference between our positions that I will not hesitate to raise it and, if warranted, attack any fallacious argument that I believe underlies such difference. I am sure that Indi will do the same and, to be frank, I really welcome the fact that this is so.That is a very long post Bikerman. My post has no uzis or cheap watches. I did not say that I thought that consciousness collapsed the wavefunction. I have said I think the opposite several times, and in fact I've given you quite a detailed description of how I view it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| What is this ‘pure’ notion referring to? |
We make a distinction between "pure" and "mixed" states. Pure states are coherent ones. For example, if we were considering horizontally and vetrically polarized photons, we could have the state
|psi> = |H> + |V> / sqrt(2)
Intuitively that's a 45 degrees polarized photon. If I measure it in a horizontal/vertical basis then with 50% probability I'll find it's horizontally polarized, and with 50% probability I'll find it's vertically polarized.
A mixed state is one which has classical uncertainty which coherent state I'm in. For example, I could prepare a photon whose polarization I didn't know. With 50% probability I could prepare one in the horizonal state, and with 50% probability I could prepare one in the vertical state. Clearly if I made the horizontal/vertical measurement I'd get the same results above.
However the two states are not the same. If I measure at 45 degrees, for the pure state, all the light will be found to be polarized in that direction (and none at 135 degrees). In contrast, if I measure the mixed state, 50% of the time the photon will be found to be 45 degrees polarized, and 50% of the time 135 degrees polarized.
| Quote: |
| The notion that the umpteen gazillion atoms in a watch could all be superpositional is irrational and plainly contradicts basic QM as well as common sense. |
We were discussing the many world's interpretation, in which everything is in a superpostion state. Watches, observers, everything, all umpteen gazillion atoms. The observer, as well as the watch end up in an entangled superposition as part of the universe's overall wavefunction, which the obsever, from his subjective experience, might interpret as collapse.
This is not in contradiction to decoherence - decoherence just meaning that the environment (since the box is supposedly isolated this environment is the contents of the box) quickly becomes entangled with the state of the watch. From the point of view of an observer who is about to open the box, they can validly make the approximation that the state is classical, since it is impossible to perform any type of interference experiment. All that shows us is that this experiment is useless for telling apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics.
You are right about message boards, and I'm sorry to hear about your old stomping ground. Please forgive me if I post too quickly before my annoyance wears off. Mostly I am only still posting at all because after the annoyance (and the urge to thump first year textbooks!), I start to wonder what you guys must actually feel like, and what drives you to post the way you do. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Yet again you repeat this statement. Why is that? |
Because, yet again, Indi is misrepresenting my views, and I am saying what my view actually is.
| Quote: |
| 1) Do you believe that observation and measurement are the same thing, or are functionally the same in that they always produce the same effect on quantum systems ? |
If we take Indi's definition of "measurement" as "an interaction", then no. I definitely do not. In cavity QED, for example, the photon can be reflected coherently interact with the atom again. So it's incorrect talk about interactions of this type as a measurement. For me, measurement is intimately connected to the Born rule.
However, I completely disagree with Indi's definitions. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, I choose (b), as I have said:
| Quote: |
| I prefer a picture of decoherence, in which the system becomes entangled with a large, macroscopic, environment whose state we don't know. If you trace out the environment (again invoking the Born rule, but this time because of the incomplete knowledge of the observer about such a large environment) then you see decoherence. If, on the other hand, we can tell the state of the environment from the measurement apparatus, then you can describe it as a positive operator valued measurement. |
| nopaniers wrote: |
| That is a very long post Bikerman. My post has no uzis or cheap watches. I did not say that I thought that consciousness collapsed the wavefunction. I have said I think the opposite several times, and in fact I've given you quite a detailed description of how I view it. |
I accept that you didn't talk about consciousness causing collapse and it was not my intention to attribute that to you. If I have done so then I am wrong and will happily correct myself if you point out the offending passage or sentence - I had a quick scan back but didn't see anything obvious...
You DID mention that Penrose is a leading proponent of this view, but on that all I can say is that I honestly don't know whether he is or isn't. I have only come across work which talks about quantum effects causing consciousness rather than the reverse. That does not mean you are wrong, it may be quite correct - I simply don't know, so I'll look out for clues or clear statements on this when I next read or watch something of his.
(I am working through his massive Road to Reality book at the moment but I have forbidden myself from flicking ahead to later chapters because it is too tempting and would ultimately mean that I never finish the book and I am determined to do so). I do know that Penrose is not a MWI supporter. I came across him discussing it in brief at the end of a lecture and, let's just say he didn't spend too much time on the question
| Quote: |
We make a distinction between "pure" and "mixed" states. ......<snip for brevity>However the two states are not the same. If I measure at 45 degrees, for the pure state, all the light will be found to be polarized in that direction (and none at 135 degrees). In contrast, if I measure the mixed state, 50% of the time the photon will be found to be 45 degrees polarized, and 50% of the time 135 degrees polarized.
|
OK, I think I understand that - I'll only know for sure later today when I re-read it - it either still makes sense or causes a headache 
'
| Quote: |
| We were discussing the many world's interpretation, in which everything is in a superpostion state. Watches, observers, everything, all umpteen gazillion atoms. The observer, as well as the watch end up in an entangled superposition as part of the universe's overall wavefunction, which the obsever, from his subjective experience, might interpret as collapse. |
ermmm....hmm, OK....I am certainly no expert on MWI so I'll have to read up more before any proper comeback on this, but my initial thoughts are that, yes, the total Universe is regarded as a single wave function which is a real entity and which every object obeys (is part of) ..agreed. My provblem is that I have a feeling that the box in the example would actually form a complete world in itself and this would mean that it was de cohered from the main 'universal' wave function and would be describes as a single macro state of that function. I haven't thought through the implications of that yet so I'll have to come back to this..... | Quote: |
You are right about message boards, and I'm sorry to hear about your old stomping ground. Please forgive me if I post too quickly before my annoyance wears off. Mostly I am only still posting at all because after the annoyance (and the urge to thump first year textbooks!), I start to wonder what you guys must actually feel like, and what drives you to post the way you do. |
Nothing to forgive here......you have been perfectly civil with me and I have no complaint. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Yet again you repeat this statement. Why is that? |
Because, yet again, Indi is misrepresenting my views, and I am saying what my view actually is. |
Well, I have to say that in all good faith I reached a similar conclusion independently about what you wrote - it was the line about measurement being observers belief that I found impossible to accept (and still do) since I am clear about what I mean by the two terms.
Observer - passive. They could possibly affect a quantum system but not in most circumstances. An observer is one who watches which to me means just that - eyes only - and in most cases I can think of a person simple watching would not interact with a quantum system - you cannot see photons individually in the 2 slit experiment so in the normal run of things the observer would be completely separate and in no way part of the system being measured and would therefore not influence any outputs or results. Obviously if the observer does interact with the system (for example he/she pulls out a piece of kit which allows detection of photons in a 2 slit experiment) then I no longer define him/her as an observer but now redefine them as a measurer since they have gone from passive to active. Now, certainly, they would be interacting with the experiment and would, therefore, influence the outcome.
Measurement - act which must interfere with the system in question since measurement is a process which must involve interaction with the thing being measured in some way. Some element of the measurer must respond to some element of the thing being measured to produce a measurement, otherwise how do we measure? I think I wrote the formal expression for this in an earlier posting somewhere.
It may be that my definition is so clear to me whilst also not being generally accepted by others is what makes this question seem annoyingly obvious to me and not so to others. I'm beginning ti think so - especially after I have just seen a postings on SciWeb which specifically states "observation = measurement" in terms. To me that is not true and hence I find no paradoxes. Ultimately it comes down to a semantic argument I suppose.
There may be money in this....
"If an observer in the woods doesn't have anything to observe then is an observation made?"
"If an observer dies in the experiment and nobody notices, does he make a sound when he hits the ground?"
"What is the sound of 1 observer with no observations to make?"
yep, that sounds like a suitable offering for next months Readers Digest £10 Deep Questions page (and is probably cretinous enough to be accepted
Seriously, if the only point of difference is a semantic one then I will withdraw now that is clear and leave you and Indi to it unless I think I have something new to add. I certainly don't know much more than I have said about many aspects of QM but my reading is progressing and Chapter 20 in Penrose is not too far away now.....I'm almost reluctant to reply here for fear of being torn apart by vicious FriHosters, but I will not pretend to be well versed in Quantum Theory and go on about how it's scientifically impossible to do such things, when I've found if you add a little faith to the equation you can get miracle results. Really that's what the original post was about, and everyone jumped onto the tangent of how impossible it is to actually effect the Universe with ouir intentions.
If you are unfamiliar with "The Law of Attraction" please watch "The Secret", also another movie that has helped to bring Quantum Physics to the masses is, "What the Bleep do we know?"
When I first started reading this post I was excited to hear someone trying to articulate their experience of creating their own
Universe. Just this morning my fiance and I were having a warm discussion about the Unity of all things in the Universe and the possibilities that exist despite our unawareness of them.
Although we came to no agreement on reincarnation, we do however agree that it is possible to create certain experiences in our lives by setting our intention on them. I refer not only to a particular goal in which there are certain steps to take but also an abstract desire put out into the Universe without knowing how it will come about.
For example:
I was in need of a curtain rod to hang a partition in the living room, I used my gratitude for the existance of the curtain rod, because even before we have asked God has answered. Then by no stroke of mere coincidence I found exactly what I needed not five minutes later, at the bottom of the stairs to my apartment, at no cost to me, just lying there, random chance? I think not.
Example 2:
My fiance and I were on our way to walk around the Opry Land Hotel for fun, BTW an absolutly beautiful place you should visit, on the way there we were thinking of things we'd like to attract. I have to note I didn't recieve my attraction because for some reason manifesting money proves to be something I've not yet mastered, but anyway, Bernadette was complaining of a hangnail and joked, I'm going to find a nail file. Lo and behold not more than two hours later we walked upon a nail file just lying on the ground. We could have walked any other direction that evening and missed it, we could have walked that way minutes before or after said file existed there and not found it, but to our amazement we saw the LOA in action that night, not for the first time and not for the last.
Although it may be a trivial example to some, it is in the little things that some of the largest examples of faith can be made.
| IceCreamTruck wrote: |
| another movie that has helped to bring Quantum Physics to the masses is, "What the Bleep do we know?" |
Oh god no. >.< If you've watched that, give your brain an enema. There's better physics in a freaking Roadrunner cartoon.
To be specific, it makes a few true statements about quantum mechanics... then bizarrely generalizes them from the quantum level to the real world... then starts creating this strange religion around the pseudoscientific nonsense that ensues. It is complete lunacy. It's only saving grace - the reason that it does not get completely outright dismissed by anyone who has even passed by the door of a high-school level physics course - is that it never tells any outright lies about the science itself. It's very sneaky that way. It makes a true statement about real science, then it somehow jumps from that to complete wackiness, never with more than a vague explanation of the logic, usually with no explanation at all... which means that when the average person sees the "film", then goes to do cursory research to confirm its scientific claims, they come out to be true, which then implies that the rest of it is true (because people take it for granted that because the narrator tells a scientific fact and then says "therefore..." authoritatively, what follows must be true if the scientific fact is true). Not so, in this case. The science is almost all technically correct. The rest of it - all of the history, philosophy, logic, biology, and all of the thinking that follows after stating the technical facts - all of that is a steaming dung heap. | Bikerman wrote: |
| accepted by others is what makes this question seem annoyingly obvious to me and not so to others. I'm beginning ti think so - especially after I have just seen a postings on SciWeb which specifically states "observation = measurement" in terms. |
That is because that these terms have been badly redefined. Typically we would describe an interaction with a large bath that is not observed (typically time-scales of the dynamics of the bath are required to be much faster than those of the interaction) as "decoherence", and to a bath which is a measuring device of some type (potentially with an observer) as "measurement". You can use your "attempted mathematics" - which as far as you got before you jumped was pretty standard - to describe both processes. The next step is to trace over the environment, which leaves the system in the pointer basis.
Semantic games are not important. Ridiculing of quantum mechanics in favour of a classical view is. The points of difference are:
(1) Whether a local hidden variable model of quantum mechanics is correct.
(2) If the observer's point of view plays a role in the MWI.
(3) Whether the MWI is easily experimentally testable.
(4) If back-action occurs.
(5) If objects (specifically, a single atom or photon) can be meaningfully described as being in a superposition.
Before we were taken off on a massive meaningless tangent - the original point of this thread was whether our perspective as individuals has any influence on the outcome of experiment.
The science in What the Bleep is not correct. Take, for example, the ice crystals. They were placed in jars labelled with the corresponding emotion - for example "love" or "hate". Then then next morning, a single crystal out of the millions which had formed was selected and photographed, based on the label. That's simply a selection bias. With regard to quantum mechanics they edited out the real points and redefined the same words to have new age overtones.
PS. Bikerman, you are right, Penrose may well be the other way around. | Indi wrote: |
| IceCreamTruck wrote: | | another movie that has helped to bring Quantum Physics to the masses is, "What the Bleep do we know?" |
Oh god no. >.< If you've watched that, give your brain an enema. There's better physics in a freaking Roadrunner cartoon. |
Agreed. The previous recommendation in the posting - 'The Secret' - is, IMHO, even worse. It sounds like a sub-plot from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy : | The Secret wrote: |
| One spring day towards the end of 2004, Rhonda Byrne discovered a secret - the secret laws and principles of the universe. |
All we need is for the Vogons to turn up and destroy the planet and away we go....
I also object to the reference because it is advertising - "the Secret' is available mainly from a commercial money-making site which charges $5 to watch the video. | Bikerman wrote: |
Agreed. The previous recommendation in the posting - 'The Secret' - is, IMHO, even worse. It sounds like a sub-plot from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy : | The Secret wrote: | | One spring day towards the end of 2004, Rhonda Byrne discovered a secret - the secret laws and principles of the universe. |
|
Oh good lord. -_- Is that an actual quote? It's something i'd use for a parody.
Or hey, maybe she actually has something, and we'll see her turn up in Stockholm in a year or two, hm? ^_^;
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I also object to the reference because it is advertising - "the Secret' is available mainly from a commercial money-making site which charges $5 to watch the video. |
Technically, any recommendation for an item of non-public domain media is an ad of sorts. In theory, i should have paid cash money in some form or another in order to watch that other craptastic film, "What the ****** do we know?" (answer, not a whole hell of a lot, it seems). i didn't. i regret nothing.[quote="Indi"] | Bikerman wrote: |
Oh good lord. -_- Is that an actual quote? It's something i'd use for a parody.
|
'Fraid so....hard to believe, I know:-) | Quote: |
Or hey, maybe she actually has something, and we'll see her turn up in Stockholm in a year or two, hm? ^_^; |
LOL...maybe, but I think a Notel prize rather than a Nobel (No Obvious Talent, Education or Learning) Humor me for a moment, if you will. Maybe an important piece of information was kept from the masses. Maybe there is something more to things than can be explained in your sterile labs, maybe Quantum such had to be packaged into an easy to digest mind trip for the bulk of the gene pool to be able to even fathom such amazing science, let alone that "God", "The Universe", "Life" or God forbid Science might all be the same thing. Think of how many years it's been since realitivity and some of the most important principles of our Universe were discovered, are they widely known, are they Universally accepted, are they applied from day to day life, actually improving quality of life? Or have they been hushed, confused, abused, and manipulated for the good of a few? Maybe it was high time that Hope was given back to Humanity. You may say, you shouldn't fill their heads with such pipe dreams, but if not for the glimmer of a tomorrow that we have chosen, the World may be doomed. I say let the people believe, let them hope and create, and experiment with their Consciousness, empower them to be the Creators of their own Universe, and we will see what kind of Paradigm we end up with. It is my understanding of the application of this science, it is by the majority of the beliefs that we hold most fervently that the Collective pulls its Paradigm, individivuals hold true to their own personal Paradigm, all the while living in a larger one not as malleable as their own, depending on how much Power and Control they imagine themselves to have. It is Limiting Beliefs that have held us back for so long, let us now take the shackles off Our Consciousness, and finally come to realize we've been gods all along, but have been sold short of The Truth about Who We Are.
Perhaps a closer look into the eyes of those trying to tell you've been sleep walking might garner a shift in what seems to be a painful Paradigm to live in. I stand by my recomendations of cinema, however outside certain boxes, it does the trick as a primer at least.
B
Last edited by prizma on Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Ah the cynical views of those with no room in their paradigm for a little faith. Maybe an important piece of information was kept from the masses. Maybe there is something more to things than can be explained in your sterile labs, maybe Quantum such had to be packaged into an easy to digest mind trip for the bulk of the gene pool to be able to even fathom such amazing science, let alone that "God", "The Universe", "Life" or God forbid Science might all be the same thing. Think of how many years it's been since realitivity and some of the most important principles of our Universe were discovered, is it widely known, is it Universally accepted, is it applied from day to day life, actually improving quality of life? Maybe it was high time that Hope was given back to Humanity. You may say, you shouldn't fill their heads with such pipe dreams, but if not for the glimmer of a tomorrow that we have chosen, the World may be doomed. I say let the people believe, let them hope and create, and experiment with their Consciousness, empower them to be the Creators of their own Universe, and we will see what kind of Paradigm we end up with. It is Limiting Beliefs that have held us back for so long, let us now take the shackles off Our Consciousness, and finally come to realize we've been gods all along, but have been sold short of The Truth about Who We Are. 
Perhaps a closer look into the eyes of those trying to tell you've been sleep walking might garner a shift in what seems to be a painful Paradigm to live in. I stand by my recomendations of cinema, however outside certain boxes, it does the trick as a primer at least.
B | prizma wrote: |
| Ah the cynical views of those with no room in their paradigm for a little faith. |
Not when considering scientific theory, no. | Quote: |
| Maybe an important piece of information was kept from the masses. Maybe there is something more to things than can be explained in your sterile labs, |
There certainly is. | Quote: |
| maybe Quantum such had to be packaged into an easy to digest mind trip for the bulk of the gene pool to be able to even fathom such amazing science, let alone that "God", "The Universe", "Life" or God forbid Science might all be the same thing. |
Packaged by whom? God=universe=science=life? Well, of those 4 we know what science is because it is a human construct - we made it. If God is science then God is also a human construct. | Quote: |
| Think of how many years it's been since realitivity and some of the most important principles of our Universe were discovered, is it widely known, is it Universally accepted, is it applied from day to day life, actually improving quality of life? |
I presume you mean Relativity? As a theory it is on-going so it is not possible to talk about how many years since the theory....it is being developed continually. Is it widely known? Probably more than most scientific theory but no, it isn't. Is it universally accepted? No, but almost so amongst scientists, there are very few dissenters. Is it applied daily? Yes. Does it improve life? Depends on definitions but I would say so. | Quote: |
| Maybe it was high time that Hope was given back to Humanity. You may say, you shouldn't fill their heads with such pipe dreams, but if not for the glimmer of a tomorrow that we have chosen, the World may be doomed. |
I say you should not fill their heads with pseudo-science under the pretence that it is actually science. | Quote: |
| I say let the people believe, let them hope and create, and experiment with their Consciousness, empower them to be the Creators of their own Universe, and we will see what kind of Paradigm we end up with. It is Limiting Beliefs that have held us back for so long, let us now take the shackles off Our Consciousness, and finally come to realize we've been gods all along, but have been sold short of The Truth about Who We Are. |
Hmm...so you say. Me? I don't think I'm a God and I don't think anyone has been selling me short when it comes to who I am because I don't think anyone knows. Believe what you like, experiment with your consciousness by all means; just don't kid yourself, or anyone else, that this is something to do with science - it isn't.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps a closer look into the eyes of those trying to tell you've been sleep walking might garner a shift in what seems to be a painful Paradigm to live in. I stand by my recomendations of cinema, however outside certain boxes, it does the trick as a primer at least. |
And you are in a position to judge you think ? | Bikerman wrote: |
| prizma wrote: | | Ah the cynical views of those with no room in their paradigm for a little faith. |
Not when considering scientific theory, no. |
Do You think equating the variable of Faith might somehow cheapen Science?
Maybe an important piece of information was kept from the masses. Maybe there is something more to things than can be explained in your sterile labs,
| Bikerman wrote: |
| There certainly is. |
maybe Quantum such had to be packaged into an easy to digest mind trip for the bulk of the gene pool to be able to even fathom such amazing science, let alone that "God", "The Universe", "Life" or God forbid Science might all be the same thing.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Packaged by whom? God=universe=science=life? Well, of those 4 we know what science is because it is a human construct - we made it. If God is science then God is also a human construct.
|
Agreed, as "God" or the connotation stands today, it is not an accurate portrayal of Creation. I see "God" as the process, it's Life, the breath that fills those with awareness. I was refering to the movie WTB? being packaged to sell, but actually containing Truths that if entertained may hold a key to understandings the likes of which Humanity has not held.
Think of how many years it's been since (realitivity and some of the most important principles of our Universe) Quantum Physics [I guess I meant] were discovered, is it widely known, is it Universally accepted, is it applied from day to day life, actually improving quality of life?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I presume you mean Relativity? As a theory it is on-going so it is not possible to talk about how many years since the theory....it is being developed continually. Is it widely known? Probably more than most scientific theory but no, it isn't. Is it universally accepted? No, but almost so amongst scientists, there are very few dissenters. Is it applied daily? Yes. Does it improve life? Depends on definitions but I would say so. |
Maybe it was high time that Hope was given back to Humanity. You may say, you shouldn't fill their heads with such pipe dreams, but if not for the hopeful glimmer of a tomorrow that we have chosen, the World may be doomed.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I say you should not fill their heads with pseudo-science under the pretence that it is actually science. |
I say let the people believe, let them hope and create, and experiment with their Consciousness, empower them to be the Creators of their own Universe, and we will see what kind of Paradigm we end up with.
It is Limiting Beliefs that have held us back for so long, let us now take the shackles off Our Consciousness, and finally come to realize we've been gods(All powerful Universe Creators) all along, but have been sold short of The Truth about Who We Really Are.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Hmm...so you say. Me? I don't think I'm a God and I don't think anyone has been selling me short when it comes to who I am because I don't think anyone knows. Believe what you like, experiment with your consciousness by all means; just don't kid yourself, or anyone else, that this is something to do with science - it isn't. |
I cannot speak for your reality, you may very well be exactly as you believe. I use Paradigm as a rigidity in complex belief systems that create manifestations in your Reality. I speak in general terms of the majority of people, unaware of their intrinsic Creative Power. If you hold that you are not a "god" in your Universe, then what Creative Power do you have? When or if you ever come to an even larger understanding of what that means, you will see your True Creative Potential. Perhaps a closer look into the eyes of those trying to tell you've been sleep walking might garner a shift in what seems to be a painful Paradigm to live in. I stand by my recomendations of cinema, however outside certain boxes, it does the trick as a primer at least.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| And you are in a position to judge you think ? |
No, I'm only in the position to speculate about what it must be like to see the Universe as so limited, when we Truely have Infinite Potential to create our Universes, whether or not you ascribe yourself as God or Creator of your own Universe. | prizma wrote: |
| Do You think equating the variable of Faith might somehow cheapen Science? |
No, I think it would completely devastate it. Once faith is needed then the scientific method is worthless - why experiment if you only need to believe? Scientific method is indifferent to faith, it says "this will work whether you believe it or not"; faith is not required, not useful and not really wanted in this environment. A scientist who believes his/her own hypothesis is starting from the wrong place, I think, since they may be tempted to make the hypotheses work by twisting the data a little - it has happened many times in science and normally occurs when a scientist is too attached to a hypothesis to start with.
(If you read the article I posted on scientific method and how science operated then this will become much clearer).
| Quote: |
| <snip>...Agreed, as "God" or the connotation stands today, it is not an accurate portrayal of Creation. I see "God" as the process, it's Life, the breath that fills those with awareness. I was refering to the movie WTB? being packaged to sell, but actually containing Truths that if entertained may hold a key to understandings the likes of which Humanity has not held. |
Hmm....I think not. I think that is meaningless waffle. | Quote: |
| I cannot speak for your reality, you may very well be exactly as you believe. I use Paradigm as a rigidity in complex belief systems that create manifestations in your Reality. |
A paradigm is actually a technical word in syntactic analysis which has come to mean something slightly different. In the non-syntactic sense a paradigm is just a viewpoint, or a set of shared values, nothing more. It doesn't have to be complex or rigid, but obviously when dealing with complex issues then anything less than a complex model is going to be a simplification and risks becoming over simplistic and therefore of limited use. My 'belief' system, however, is limited to 1 article of 'faith'. I believe that when trying to explain the physical universe, which involves constructing theories and models, science is better than any other approach for this task. I think that this is amply demonstrated in real life and know of no other system of thought which even comes close to science's success so far.
(As for creating manifestations in my reality...I haven't got the faintest idea what that is supposed to mean).
| Quote: |
I speak in general terms of the majority of people, unaware of their intrinsic Creative Power. If you hold that you are not a "god" in your Universe, then what Creative Power do you have? When or if you ever come to an even larger understanding of what that means, you will see your True Creative Potential. Perhaps a closer look into the eyes of those trying to tell you've been sleep walking might garner a shift in what seems to be a painful Paradigm to live in. I stand by my recomendations of cinema, however outside certain boxes, it does the trick as a primer at least.
|
I have plenty of creative power thanks very much. You do not need to be omniscient or omnipotent or in any manner supernatural to be creative. (In fact, if I could be bothered, I could probably make a fairly strong argument that any omniscient being is incapable of creativity by definition). What you are saying is that you have some special insight or understanding which I lack (and presumably others who take a strictly rationalist stance on this). You have no means to show this, of course, since you know nothing about my life and how creative or otherwise it is. What we have is classic pseudo-science babble. Chuck around words like paradigm in a distorted meaning, add a few completely information free words about 'manifestations in your reality', then hint that there is something being missed and imply that only by following the path of pseudo-science can it be found.....classic!
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | And you are in a position to judge you think ? |
No, I'm only in the position to speculate about what it must be like to see the Universe as so limited, when we Truely have Infinite Potential to create our Universes, whether or not you ascribe yourself as God or Creator of your own Universe. |
Err...the question being considered here is - is this a good starting point to study QM?
Up to now I have seen little evidence about your own understanding of QM theory and, not wishing to be rude, I opened the door for you here to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, without, I hoped, the need for casting doubt on the matter.
Since the opportunity was missed, I will have to be a bit more blunt, I'm afraid. The question is, simply - do you think you are qualified (experienced, knowledgeable) sufficiently in QM to be able to make the judgement that this particular film is a fair and useful place for a beginner to start learning about QM?Just an additional comment to add to Bikerman's:
Several times, prizma, you have implied or insisted that it is important that science gives "(h)ope... back to Humanity".
Why?
Since when is it the responsibility of science - or philosophy for that matter - to make people feel better?
Science has a specific purpose, and it has been designed specifically for that purpose. Science is nothing more and nothing less than a means by which we may understand our physical universe, and the mechanisms by which it functions. That's it. There's nothing in there about providing hope or comfort to humanity. That's simply not the job of science.
In fact, if it were to conclude that there is no greater meaning to life - that we are all just electrically animated meat bags whose existence has no deeper purpose than to eat, ****** and breed, consuming the universe around us like parasitic bacteria... well, frankly, tough. You can choose not to believe that conclusion if it makes you uncomfortable... but then you would be abandoning the teachings of science. Your choice.
There already exist several means by which "hope" may be found - religion, art... hell, other people, for Steve's sake, or even within yourself if you want. Science is not one of them. Science gives answers about the mechanisms that drive the physical universe. It does not exist to help you sleep better at night.
but I hold that right and wrong are relative, and that Science has long held on to old realities long after new realities have been created, or discovered whatever your Paradigm, perhaps my definition of Paradigm was lacking earlier for lack of sleep, stress, etc. I want to confess it's been long time since I've had a chance to express myself and articulate some of the ways I look at Life, and I'd like to first off thank you for your time, and help in understanding more, I myself have a mission if you will to use Science to better things here on Earth, I hold my own Idealistic views of how that can be done, and with proper education, guidance and direction, I have the high probablitiy of advancing Science to include areas of research that will be evolutionary progress. I say Consciousness is the next frontier, what say you on Noetic Science? Are there perhaps things to study that steer away from our limits and towards a more unlimited potential, Can't we use our Powers for Good? I know I can be chessy sometimes, but realize, I'm a 24 year old woman, has been a clown for 10 years. I have a very bright side kind of view, and have the Hope that my scientific, creative nature will produce some solutions on Earth instead of things to argue about. Honestly guys, I have so much potential... i hope you befriend me and encourage this process, you could witness levels of self-realization and manifestation of Dreams the likes of which you may have never seen. I know I'm smart, but of course misguided at times, as a good majority of the World is as of late, but I know somehow that I can be and do whatever I put my mind to. I forsee a grand future, and living a legendary life, that will go down in history for the impact on the Planet. I have a very powerful partner, you may know him as IceCreamTruck, and together we will have Mastery. Together we will create a Future for our posterity and yours. You can doubt me, but I have no need for your Faith in me to accomplish that which I set my mind to. May it be through Science, Technology, or Spirituality or all of the above, Life will Progress and Evolve, and come to better understand itself.
Last edited by prizma on Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
| ocalhoun wrote: |
I know this post is long, but take the time to read it completely. If I'm right about it (and what little evidence I have is compelling) it could revelutionize your life, making you never depend on luck again.
|
The post was long, but good. The topic is long, good; if not alittle confusing, and off-topic at times.
The body of your message (not included again) basically boils down to a choice. Which universe will you choose? I choose a universe where things are just naturally awesome.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
*A mistake you could make using this method:
-Saying you want something. "I, ocalhoun, want a $50 bill" Has already happened; I already want a $50 bill.
|
...and the statement "feed the hungry" needs to be changed to "full bellies" for this same reason because I believe that we are living in caring and giving universe that will find a way to provide for everyone, and we shall have true peace forever and ever.
The post | prizma wrote: |
| but I hold that right and wrong are relative |
You will find that most philosophers don't believe that.
| prizma wrote: |
| and that Science has long held on to old realities long after new realities have been created, or discovered |
When has this happened in the past?
You keep talking about "Science" as if it is some religion with dogma and scriptures set in stone. There is no group of old men who sit down and decide what is "Science" and what is heresy. No one needs permission to do science, and no one is under any obligation to do only "approved" science. Anyone, anywhere, can do science, without having to answer to anyone, anywhere.
If you think that what we hold to be true today is wrong, do the science and show us. There's nothing stopping you. We don't burn people at the stake for holding view contrary to the scientific establishment. That's the other guy's shtick.
Seriously, dude, the scientific community is not a bunch of idiots. If you can show any rational reason why we should think that what we believe is wrong... then we will change our minds (or at the very least, seriously investigate what's going on). i mean, come on, think. There are hundreds of thousands of young scientists all around the world determined to make their mark on history, and if they believed there was even the remotest chance of finding out something that will change the face of science... seriously! Think about it! Don't just make cryptic and vague statements about how "Science" is blind - explain how science is blind.
Incidentally, that's how both science and philosophy work. You can't just waltz into the room and say whatever the hell you want. You have to back up what you say... or you will just be dismissed as a kook. If you can't back up what you say, well then you either have to do more work to support your claims... or give them up. That's all there is to it.
| prizma wrote: |
| I myself have a mission if you will to use Science to better things here on Earth |
Well, that's good for you. That's a noble cause. But consider two things.
First, if you want to use science... you have to use science. Nothing of what you have been talking about so far even comes close. Certainly nothing in the original post was close to scientific either. If you disagree, well, i'm sorry, you're wrong - because it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Science is very rigorous, and it has very clear definitions of how it should be done. These are not my opinion, they are called the scientific method. Either you use the scientific method... or you don't do science. Period. No debate. No opinion.
Second, if you think that's restrictive and that it holds back progress, remember that that's the way science has been done for hundreds of years. So it's obviously not that restrictive.
If you don't want to use science... well, no one's forcing you. But again, remember, that computer you're sitting in front of now... science made that, and everything else that makes your life safe, healthy and comfortable. Obviously science works. You don't have to use it, but obviously it works, so you might not want to give it up so quickly. But if you're going to use it, use it. Don't just do whatever the hell you want, then call it science.
| prizma wrote: |
| what say you on Noetic Science? |
Never heard of it.
| prizma wrote: |
| Are there perhaps things to study that steer away from our limits and towards a more unlimited potential, Can't we use our Powers for Good? |
Yes, and science has been doing that for hundreds of years.
And frankly, there's no reason that you couldn't do scientific studies of consciousness, or on things like what was talked about in the original post. Certainly you could do science on those kinds of topics, and on things like alternate realities and expanded consciousness. But - and i will say this again and again until it sinks in - if you are going to use science, use science. Just saying you're doing science is not doing science. Using scientific sounding words and running experiments is not doing science. Science is a strict and rigorous method that is designed to root out untruths and leave you with the truth. If you do not do it properly, then it is useless - you might as well just make stuff up as you go. Of course... that won't help anyone.
Use the scientific method... or you're not doing science. That's all there is to it. The same goes to the original poster (although, i'm not even sure whether or not she cares about being scientific), and anyone else who wants to practise science. Science is an incredibly powerful tool... but only if you use it properly, otherwise it's useless. Bikerman is assembling a thread in the Science and Nature forum that goes a long way toward describing the proper way to do science. You should check it out. | Indi wrote: |
| In fact, if it were to conclude that there is no greater meaning to life - that we are all just electrically animated meat bags whose existence has no deeper purpose than to eat, ****** and breed, consuming the universe around us like parasitic bacteria... well, frankly, tough. You can choose not to believe that conclusion if it makes you uncomfortable... but then you would be abandoning the teachings of science. |
No, you wouldn't. Science only teaches the mechanisms the hows of the universe. When you start making calls like "there's no greater meaning in life" or "we are all animated meat bags whose existence has no deeper purpose than to eat" those are atheist, not scientific values.
From my Christian point of view, if I may, is that science is very cool. That we can understand how chemistry, physics and biology works is fascinating and wonderful, and not at all depressing. It brings glory to God.
| Indi wrote: |
| But - and i will say this again and again until it sinks in - if you are going to use science, use science. |
Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have not referred to a single real experiment, instead relying on statements like "most physicists" and so on. You've introduced two imaginary "thought experiments", and aggressive language to say that your view of the universe is obvious. Now that's all well and good, except that the model you presented is wrong and has been ruled out by experiment by Aspect in the late 70's and early 80's.
About collapse being measured, quote this week's Nature, which was dedicated to the MWI says:
| Nature wrote: |
| No matter how large a system they probe, it [MWI] says, they will not observe the wavefunction collapsing. Indeed, collapse free superpositions have been demonstrated in systems with many atoms, such as carbon-60 molecules. Several groups are now attempting to create quantum superpositions involving 10^17 atoms or more, tantalizingly close to the human macroscopic scale. |
Personally I like to also point out that in superconductors macroscopic numbers of particles have already been observed in a superposition.
FRIH$100 Challenge Begins Here
I would like to present a little challenge. This is based on a paper by Mermin, which was in turn based on an earlier work by GHZ. I apologise in advance for any mistakes since it's a while since I read them and I'm doing this from memory.
Consider a very simple game. Teams of three have to answer very simple questions. Each of the team members - Alice, Bob and Charlie - is separated from each other so that they cannot communicate. Then they each are asked a simple question (which the other two members of the team do not know), either
"What is X?"
or
"What is Y?"
Each of the players are only allowed to respond with a value either +1 or -1. For example, if they are asked what X is, they answer either:
"X=1"
or
"X=-1"
All good so far? I sure hope so. It's not too difficult.
Now it so happens that only four sets of questions are ever asked. Either all the players are asked what X is (ie. XXX) or two are asked what Y is, and only one what X is (ie. XYY, YXY, YYX). If they are asked XXX then they win if their answers multiply to +1.
X1 X2 X3 = +1
Otherwise, they win if their answers multiply to -1. Ie, one of
X1 Y2 Y3 = -1,
Y1 X2 Y3 = -1,
Y1 Y2 X3 = -1.
Easy huh? Your challenge is to devise a strategy so that your team always wins, no matter what question they are asked. Remember, there is no communication between Alice, Bob and Charlie allowed, although they are allowed to meet before the experiment to distribute resources and set up their tactics. Have a go! There's no tricky maths here if you can multiply +1 and -1 you're set! FRIH$100 to the winner. | wrote: |
| Maybe an important piece of information was kept from the masses. Maybe there is something more to things than can be explained in your sterile labs, maybe Quantum such had to be packaged into an easy to digest mind trip for the bulk of the gene pool to be able to even fathom such amazing science, let alone that "God", "The Universe", "Life" or God forbid Science might all be the same thing. |
Well if it's being with-held from the masses then it is being withheld from quantum physicists too. I know I do my best to communicate the ideas in quantum physics as clearly as I can.
Your local library (or university) should have copies of the reputable scientific journals for you to browse. The vast majority of significant papers about quantum physics since 2000 are available free as a pre-prints on:
http://arxiv.org
Feel free to have a browse. Be aware that these are only pre-prints and have not yet been peer reviewed and so there is sometimes some basically incorrect papers on ther. I recommend the recent papers this week:
http://www.arxiv.org/list/quant-ph/recent
which is something like a morning newspaper for many physicists around the world.
If you find anything which you would like help with then feel free to ask, and I'll see what I can do.
If you would like an introduction far more accepting of eastern philosophy - then perhaps you could consider reading some of Bohm's writings about quantum mechanics. For example, Implicate Order. He, for example, agrees that truth is a relative term, and also stresses that the universe has "implicate order" - the order of the whole universe not just of individual parts of it which science tends to stress.
| Quote: |
say let the people believe, let them hope and create, and experiment with their Consciousness, empower them to be the Creators of their own Universe, and we will see what kind of Paradigm we end up with.
It is Limiting Beliefs that have held us back for so long, let us now take the shackles off Our Consciousness, and finally come to realize we've been gods(All powerful Universe Creators) all along, but have been sold short of The Truth about Who We Really Are. |
We are not Gods. God is God. We are humans. That is who we really are. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | In fact, if it were to conclude that there is no greater meaning to life - that we are all just electrically animated meat bags whose existence has no deeper purpose than to eat, ****** and breed, consuming the universe around us like parasitic bacteria... well, frankly, tough. You can choose not to believe that conclusion if it makes you uncomfortable... but then you would be abandoning the teachings of science. |
No, you wouldn't. Science only teaches the mechanisms the hows of the universe. When you start making calls like "there's no greater meaning in life" or "we are all animated meat bags whose existence has no deeper purpose than to eat" those are atheist, not scientific values. |
In future, you might try reading what i wrote before attempting to criticize it. i realize that this is not something you are used to doing, but you really should try it. Your objection has absolutely nothing to do with what i said. But then, what else is new?
In this specific case, what i said was that science is not obligated to provide any kind of comfort or happiness with the answers it provides. Surely you don't dispute that? i should hope not, because you said pretty much the same thing in your misguided objection.
And since science is not obligated to give feel-good conclusions, science could possibly determine that life is meaningless. i did not say that it does. i did not say that i expect it to. i did not say that i want it to. i did not say that i would be happy if it did. All i said is that it was possible.
And if it were to do so - (Which could happen because it is a possibility. And once again: i did not say that it does. i did not say that i expect it to. i did not say that i want it to. i did not say that i would be happy if it did. All i said is that it was possible. And if it is possible, then it could happen. That is all.) - if it were to reach the conclusion that life is meaningless, then there would be nothing to be done about it. You could not argue that science is flawed or incomplete because it does not provide you with happiness and meaning. It was never supposed to. It was only supposed to explain what happens, and if that offers you no comfort... tough.
And that is what i said. These imaginary "atheist values" that you are objecting to - you put them there yourself.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| From my Christian point of view, if I may, is that science is very cool. That we can understand how chemistry, physics and biology works is fascinating and wonderful, and not at all depressing. It brings glory to God. |
Good for you. But that has nothing to do what i said. You get your comfort from your religion, not science - as you say yourself. Science does nothing but explain how the universe works.That life is meaningless is a value judgement and not a physical mechanism.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| That life is meaningless is a value judgement and not a physical mechanism. |
Alternatively - 'that life is meaningful' is also a value judgement. If you are doing science then this is a good standpoint to adopt - life is meaningless, or life is meaningful - the important point being that the particular question is not science and is, therefore, best left out of any scientific debate since it will inevitably screw-up good data-sets with mucky, imprecise value judgements which no serious scientist wants.
This is where, I think, most debate on this must end up. Inevitably people look for science to do more than science is designed to do, primarily because it has a long history of conflict with religion and people, therefore, expect it to be a replacement or an upgrade. It isn't, never will be, never could be.
Those 'value judgements' are what separates the messy, gooey stuff we call life from the neat, ordered bits of hard stuff that science studies. Up to now whenever science has tried to bridge the physical universe and look at organic, particularly human, concerns and problems, it ends up in tears. We end up with the pseudo-science of Freud/Jung or worse chicanery and dishonesty, witnessed in many of the psychological approaches we have seen over the last century.
Science cannot, yet, speak intelligently about many aspects of biology, let alone being able to make statements about the 'human condition'. I do not personally believe that is necessarily fixed in stone. It is possible to imagine scenarios whereby proper scientific method can be brought to bear on this area and some work is being done currently at the edges.
Now if you start from the position that there is something magical, transcendent, paranormal or divine about the human condition, then, of course, science cannot help - you have already put the problem beyond the scope of science by so defining it.
I start from a more materialistic, and strangely, I think, a more optimistic and more intellectually 'honest' position. The starting point must be - "I don't know".
Deep down I suspect that we are likely to be 'machines' of a very sophisticated type, which we cannot yet, and may not ever, fully understand using rationality and logic alone. Penrose starts from somewhere near my position, I think. The obvious question from this starting point is - 'what makes us different from purely logical/rational systems, and is the difference fundamental and, critical to function. I think I can say, without being too presumptuous, that Penrose thinks it is functionally and critically different - which is why he is looking at quantum consciousness, to see if quantum effects could possibly be the reason that our brains can do more than an algorithmic mechanism can currently do, and (according to Gödel and Penrose), more than such mechanisms could ever do.
I'm content in the knowledge that any breakthroughs in this area will be long after my time is up and will remain, therefore, a puzzle/unanswered question for me...I have no problem with that. | nopaniers wrote: |
| That life is meaningless is a value judgement and not a physical mechanism. |
Which is what i said. -_-
Twice.Indi, so we agree: Life is meaningless is a value judgement. Science doesn't teach about values, only about mechanisms in the physical universe. Therefore science doesn't teach that life is meaningless.
| Indi wrote: |
| You get your comfort from your religion, not science - as you say yourself. |
I actually said science brings glory to God. They're not the same since God is not the same as a belief system, such as science or relgion, and to say that he was would be to deny the existence of God... which your belief, not mine. I'm not out to get you, mate. Think of it as a friendly discussion in the pub over a pint of beer, and then we can get rid of the "he said, she said, you can't comprehend" ect. which doesn't help anyone.
---
Bikerman, we will have to agree to disagree. I think that values are all important - our hearts in other words. That you call everything that is not material, wishy washy is a large value judgement on your part, and one which I don't share.
I humbly suggest that science is of less important than the state of our hearts. These things can't be measured by tape measures or clocks - but they are far more meaningful than the charge on an electron. How can we even have science without morals? How can we have it without honesty and integrity, or without faithfulness? You can't. Values don't just apply to science, but to other systems as well - for example economics - another area where the practitioners often see their proffession outside the bounds where it applies. They apply to our lives in general. The state of our hearts is more fundamental than what's in our heads.
| 1 Corinthians 13 wrote: |
| If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. |
You made an earlier comment that if God was science then God is a manmade construct. That's not true. We learn about aspects of the sun and its effects through science but I don't think that the sun is a man-made construct. Of course, some people do argue that the universe are a construct of man (see new-age opinion above for an example). To put man first is to get everything the wrong way around. God is first. Hints for the challenge
- Try seeing if you even think the solutions are consistent. Can you assign values to X1, X2, X3, Y1, Y2, Y3 according to any strategy?
- This is a thread about quantum mechanics. Think about making measurements of X and Y...
Half prize money FRIH$50 if you can "prove" that it's not possible.
----
Also, if anyone is interested, Zurek put a paper on the arxiv on Friday about the existential interpretation of quantum mechanics:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.2832 | nopaniers wrote: |
Indi, so we agree: Life is meaningless is a value judgement. Science doesn't teach about values, only about mechanisms in the physical universe. Therefore science doesn't teach that life is meaningless.
| Indi wrote: | | You get your comfort from your religion, not science - as you say yourself. |
I actually said science brings glory to God. They're not the same since God is not the same as a belief system, such as science or relgion, and to say that he was would be to deny the existence of God... which your belief, not mine. I'm not out to get you, mate. Think of it as a friendly discussion in the pub over a pint of beer, and then we can get rid of the "he said, she said, you can't comprehend" ect. which doesn't help anyone. |
How about on the condition that you quit insisting that i have beliefs that i do not.
| nopaniers wrote: |
Hints for the challenge
- Try seeing if you even think the solutions are consistent. Can you assign values to X1, X2, X3, Y1, Y2, Y3 according to any strategy?
- This is a thread about quantum mechanics. Think about making measurements of X and Y...
Half prize money FRIH$50 if you can "prove" that it's not possible.
----
Also, if anyone is interested, Zurek put a paper on the arxiv on Friday about the existential interpretation of quantum mechanics:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.2832 |
Why are you posting either of these things here? Despite your claims, this is not a thread about quantum mechanics - unless you're intent on hijacking it for that purpose. And if it were, then it should be in the science and technology forum. You'll probably have better luck finding someone who can figure out the entanglement angle there, anyway. | nopaniers wrote: |
| You made an earlier comment that if God was science then God is a manmade construct. That's not true. We learn about aspects of the sun and its effects through science but I don't think that the sun is a man-made construct. Of course, some people do argue that the universe are a construct of man (see new-age opinion above for an example). To put man first is to get everything the wrong way around. God is first. |
I presume you are either being obtuse or trying to mislead...I don't know which.
Science is a man-made attempt to understand the universe. It is not what it studies. It is therefore logically inevitable that if God is Science then God must be a man-made construct - the rest of your point is irrelevant. | Indi wrote: |
| How about on the condition that you quit insisting that i have beliefs that i do not. |
No problem. Is implying that you don't believe in God incorrect?
| Indi wrote: |
| Why are you posting either of these things here? Despite your claims, this is not a thread about quantum mechanics - unless you're intent on hijacking it for that purpose. |
The paper is about exactly what we've been discussing - the role of decoherence as it relates to Everett's interpretation, and the way that the probabilities arise as the subjective experience of an observer.
The competition is a friendly way to try to help people understand about the difference between quantum mechanics and local probability distributions. That's a long way from where I'd like to start discussing these things, (I would like to at least start from the Kochen-Specker theorem) but some basic understanding has to come before wide ranging calls.A Solution
------------
If you think that each X, Y has a definite value, but unknown, then you're not going to win. Solving the equations
XYY = -1
YXY = -1
YYX = -1
simultaneously (multiply them together!) gives:
XXX = -1.
So classically, no matter what method we choose, if we choose a strategy which definitely statisfies the first three equations, we are guaranteed that XXX=-1... and we can't always win the game.
However, quantum mechanically if the team shares a highly entangled state (specifically the one stabilized by the group generated by <-XYY, -YXY, -YYX>). Explicity this state is the famous GHZ state:
|psi> = |000> + |111> / sqrt(2)
Then all the team members have to do is to measure their bit (qubit) along the axis asked. For example, if they are asked, "What is X" they measure X. If they are asked "What is Y" they measure Y. This amazing state always has XYY=-1, YXY=-1, XYY=-1 and XXX=+1, where X and Y are the usual Pauli operators (and I've dropped the tensor product). So with quantum mechanics we can always win!! Cool, huh?
To someone who doesn't know quantum mechanics it looks - at best - as if Alice, Bob and Charlie are cheating.
It gets worse if you accept the realist position that a measurement whose outcome is 100% certain corresponds to an element of reality - because knowing the outcome of the other two measurements, the outcome of the third is always 100% certain, and so corresponds to an element of reality.
To quote:
| Quote: |
| [This] argument demonstrates the incompatibility of quantum theory with local realism. |
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503047
And if you want more examples of simple games trying to make the difference between quantum and classical clear, have a look at this paper
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0407/0407221v3.pdf
Think about what that means for just one second or two... Again, I'm not being nasty or flaming any of you. I'm trying to help. I was the one who said God is Science, but your deduction that because Science is a man-made construct so also must be God. Granted we as humanity have constructed many beliefs about God, all attempts at understanding creation and our creator, but that does not however make God, the actual Truth of what God IS, man-made, it merely proves that all our ideas about God were made by us, I think "God" is a much larger thing than what it has been made out to be by the worlds religions, I believe God to be Life, is that man-made? What is Life? or better yet, what is not Life? Nothing. And so I understand "God" to be everything, can I prove it with the Scientific Method? No. Does that mean that "God" will not be proven someday? No. Does that mean "God" does not exist? No.
I think the arguement arises, when we are dealing with an incomplete definition of "God", perhaps trying to use the Scientific Method to prove "God" as it's been defined is futile because as it stands we don't have the correct understanding of God.
I'm in the process of expanding my understanding of what "God" IS. and seeking to relate that Scientifically, but I'm merely a high school graduate, I cannot spew experiements and mathmatics that give undenialable proof that "God" is what I believe it is, but that does not mean that someone will someday provide that scientific evidence, but then again, even after that evidence is given there will still be people who hold on to what they've believed as truth just because they are unwilling to expand their beliefs to include a new way of seeing. Like the proposition that the world was not flat, many who called themselves scientists, who thought they knew their world inside and out, and had it all figured out, held on tightly to their paradigm, held on tightly to what they knew to be true, and so I offer that perhaps there are understandings that are True that you have yet to admit, for lack of a way to prove them. But Truths can be True without proof.
I'd like to invite everyone to my first thread, an actual discussion on God, not just a hijacking of someone else's intended thread to argue about God, (which I admit might have been my fault, as I mentioned it in an earlier post)
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-77970.html#655621 | nopaniers wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | How about on the condition that you quit insisting that i have beliefs that i do not. |
No problem. Is implying that you don't believe in God incorrect? |
What it is is entirely irrelevant to the topic.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| The paper is about exactly what we've been discussing - the role of decoherence as it relates to Everett's interpretation, and the way that the probabilities arise as the subjective experience of an observer. |
No sir, that's what you've been discussing - or at least, what you think you've been discussing. All i've been interested in doing from the start is dismissing the blatantly false claims you made about the current state of science - such as that consciousness causes particles in superposition state to collapse in a predictable way.
Whatever tangent you want to go off on today, the fact remains that there is no branch of modern quantum physics that agrees in any way with ocalhoun's concept. In particular, consciousness has nothing to do with Everett's interpretation.I will ignore the trolling. Nobody except you and Bikerman has been talking about consciousness causing collapse. I have mostly been talking about MWI, which doesn't have a collapse, let alone consciousness causing collapse.
Contrary to how you have been painting Everett's interpretation,
| Indi wrote: |
| The many worlds interpretation has nothing to do with people, or consciousness, or perspective or observation. |
Everett says that it is the observer's perspective which is all important:
| Everett wrote: |
| Let one regard an observer as a subsystem of the composite system: observer + object-system. It is then an inescapable consequence that after the interaction has taken place there will not, generally, exist a single observer state. There will, however, be a superposition of the composite system states, each element of which contains a definite observer state and a definite relative object-system state. Furthermore, as we shall see, each of these relative object system states will be, approximately, the eigenstates of the observation corresponding to the value obtained by the observer which is described by the same element of the superposition. Thus, each element of the resulting superposition describes an observer who perceived a definite and generally different result, and to whom it appears that the object-system state has been transformed into the corresponding eigenstate. In this sense the usual assertions of [the collapse dynamics (Rule 4b)] appear to hold on a subjective level to each observer described by an element of the superposition. We shall also see that correlation plays an important role in preserving consistency when several observers are present and allowed to interact with one another (to ‘consult’ one another) as well as with other object-systems. |
As I said in my original post, Everett says (and I agree if I am making use of the MWI) that what one observer experiences is random.
Ocalhoun (feel free to correct me!) would disagree, saying is that the process isn't completely random, and that our subjective experiences (if I may put it like that) are altered by what we believe will happen. I am too lazy to read much of past page 1, and have never been taught quantum mechanics..BUT: ocalhoun you have been watching many WIZARDRY MOVIES. The laws of physics just don't change if all humans think "THERE IS INVERTED GRAVITY"
Humans are a physical entities they don't have "magical minds" (the infinite internal soul loop) so even if there was a device that would render the belief of gravity non-existent even at a sub-conscious level IT WOULDN'T MAKE GRAVITY DISSAPEAR TO AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER
minds are physical objects, altering them with electricity (electricity is physical as well) will not magically telekenetically change the universe...its just not possible
| Indi wrote: |
i have no interest in destroying people's ideas. The brain is like any other part of the body, it needs to be exercised to grow strong. Thinking is like any other skill, you have to practice it to be good at it. What i do is teach people to use their brains and think properly.
...snip...
However, once in a blue moon, someone will actually learn something about the proper way to think. And every time that happens, it increases the number of good ideas in the world, and creates that much less bad ideas for people to waste their lives on.
|
You know what the "proper" way to think is? Well, that's pretty amazing if I do say so myself (and I do). What makes you think that people want to be taught by you? What kind of credentials do you have for teaching people how to "properly" think? Or do you just feel intellectually superior because you post on a forum proving high schoolers wrong?
...Just curious
