|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 5, 2010 15:37:16 GMT 1
Exactly. STA does not seem to grasp that the the experimental arrangements constitute part of the observation/measurement.
Even people like Sir Roger Penrose think this way which is why he and others are endeavouring to provide (partially at least) a non-material paradigm to underpin 'objective reality.'
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 5, 2010 15:37:18 GMT 1
Because consciousnes cannot be defined as a purely physical process, any more than life life can be defined in comparison to inert matter. Consciousness (or life itself) cannot be defined or explained purely in terms of the physics of matter. Where on earth do you get such ideas? Why do you think that consciousness cannot be a consequence of physical processess? I do not think that. It is self-evidently a consequence of physical processes. I am saying that it cannot be defined by physical processes. Like life itself (which again is self-evidently a physical process) it cannot be defined purely in trems of physical processes. If this sounds obscure then I apologise, as I am not delberately attempting obfuscation
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 5, 2010 15:40:03 GMT 1
And yet no quantum experiment to date has been made without the participation of consciousness.
Question: How can quantum experiments take place in the absence of experimenters?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 5, 2010 15:41:00 GMT 1
What is measurement but observation? Tell me how they differ. Tell me how it is possible to take a measurement without observation. Measurement can be the result of interaction between very small things, the measurement itself might be impossible for us to observe and yet it can still happen Well thanks for attempting an explanation. I am not sure how a measurement can be impossible for us to observe though. Perhaps you can expand upon your explanation? - the observation (by us) is not necessary for the quantum experiment to happen. Again, I would be grateful for an expansion upon this lineof reasonong.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 5, 2010 16:25:26 GMT 1
Wrong. Only if you assume that there is some fundamental difference between an interaction with an object placed there by a human, and an object that could have been there by chance.
your feeble argument just reduces to -- only humans can make ammeters, therefore current didn't exist until humans invented ammeters...............
And as regards Penrose:
No he bloody well DOESN'T --as I have already said, Penrose links wavefunction collapse to gravity (hence totally material), and then with Hameroff, uses wavefunction collapse to underpin conscious events. Gravity causes collapse, collapse causes consciousness, material all the way down.
Arse elbow, elbow arse -- do you want me to provide you with a map, because you're obviously having problems...........
Quantum experiments are taking place everywhere all of the time, in that we have quantum systems doing there stuff, interacting with the environment etc.
You just have to make a distinction between the system doing the physics, the classical objects acting as measuring apparatus (every classical object is in some sense a measuring apparatus, in that its state is effected by stuff going on around it), and whether or not someone comes into the room and actually looks at it. All we ever do is mess about with stuff a bit, in order to highlight the effect we want to study.
This is just yet another version of the does the tree falling in an empty forest make a noise nonsense. Given a quantum gloss by people too daft to realise that what physicists mean by observation and measurement is not just -- I, a conscious individual, had a look.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 5, 2010 16:49:50 GMT 1
How on earth could a sophisticated scientific experimental arrangement just happen by chance?
STA, I think you've really lost it this time girl!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 5, 2010 16:57:41 GMT 1
The wavefunction is not material sweetheart. The wavefunction is essentially mathematical in nature and so really is an idea, hence, everything is really made of 'ideas' which originate from consciousness, hence, consciousness is not material. Do keep up. Are you sure you're not a lab technician?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 5, 2010 17:09:00 GMT 1
But you have just shown that an 'observation' is really a system of stuff that is 'out there' and us, as observers, 'filtering' it through the lens of our perceptions. In other words, objective reality, as we define it, must incorporate an observer somewhere along the line. Even Penrose acknowledges this.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 5, 2010 17:20:03 GMT 1
Wrong. Only if you assume that there is some fundamental difference between an interaction with an object placed there by a human, and an object that could have been there by chance. your feeble argument just reduces to -- only humans can make ammeters, therefore current didn't exist until humans invented ammeters............... I do not assume that there is some fundamental difference between an interaction with an object placed there by a human, and an object that could have been there by chance. It is a fact though that we do not observe quantum interactions (either purposely in experiments or accidentally in experiment)unless we observe them, and the point is that the observation influences what we observe. Our interpretation of what we observe cannot be disassociated from the observance. Whatever we observe is different from what is not observed - that is fundamental to QM, so oddly, we cannot test any hypothesis of precisely what happens in QM when we do not observe what is happening because to test the hypothesis we must observe and the hypothesis is concerned with what happens when we do not observe. In classical physics such reasoning would be nonsensical because , athough our observations in the classical physical world do affect what we observe, the effect is so minimal that we know with some precision, that what we observe in the classical physical world is largely unchanged by the observation In QM the effect of the observation is so profound that we cannot say with any precision at all what the state of a quantum system is when we do not observe it. We can make predictions that are statistically sound, but cannot say at any particular time what the state of a quantum system is. Take something like atomic decay. We know all about the statistics of half-life of certain atoms in bulk and make very accurate predictions about half-life decay. But when we considr the quantum state of just one atom we can make no predictions about its decay whatsoever. You keep telling us that QM is weird, and so it is. You also keep telling us how our preconceptions about physical behaviour must be dropped when we consider QM. Well, Abaucus is arguing that one important preconception about physics that must be dropped when we consider quantum phenomena is that we know anything at all about the state of a quantum system until we measure it. That does not preclude making accurate statistical predictions about the beahviour of quantum systems in bulk based on probabilities. Quantum experiments are taking place everywhere all of the time, in that we have quantum systems doing there stuff, interacting with the environment etc. This is an odd statement. An experiment is performed to test an hypothesis. Are you saying that quantum systems are continually teatsing the hypotheses of QM? Are you saying that the whole physical world is one big expriment? If so I congratulate you on a wholly new insight that must surely lead to your reconciliation with God This is just yet another version of the does the tree falling in an empty forest make a noise nonsense. Given a quantum gloss by people too daft to realise that what physicists mean by observation and measurement is not just -- I, a conscious individual, had a look. You really are getting into deep water. Are those bunsen burners ready for tomorrow's class?
|
|
|
Post by robinpike on Nov 5, 2010 17:37:08 GMT 1
Measurement can be the result of interaction between very small things, the measurement itself might be impossible for us to observe and yet it can still happen Well thanks for attempting an explanation. I am not sure how a measurement can be impossible for us to observe though. Perhaps you can expand upon your explanation? Yes, perhaps measurement is the wrong word to use. In terms of interactions, they can certainly happen without us observing them. For example, molecules in the air in front of me are colliding, and some are releasing heat, and some are absorbing heat. I cannot observe any of this, partly because the air is transparent, but more importantly, because there are so many molecules involved, I cannot observe the individual interactions - but they are occurring.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 5, 2010 18:00:57 GMT 1
Measuring is the correct word because every time we 'look' at something we are really monitoring its properties, such as colour, size, weight, motion and so on and to achieve this we use our perceptions which filter these properties to our brains. How can measuring something and observing it ever be separated? Not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 5, 2010 19:32:40 GMT 1
Well thanks for attempting an explanation. I am not sure how a measurement can be impossible for us to observe though. Perhaps you can expand upon your explanation? Yes, perhaps measurement is the wrong word to use. In terms of interactions, they can certainly happen without us observing them. For example, molecules in the air in front of me are colliding, and some are releasing heat, and some are absorbing heat. I cannot observe any of this, partly because the air is transparent, but more importantly, because there are so many molecules involved, I cannot observe the individual interactions - but they are occurring. Yes, I think that you are quite right for Classical physics - the act of observation has such a small affect upon what we observe that we are (probably) quite safe in saying that they are in such-and-such a state when we are not looking. But in QM we enter a strange world (I am told) where things are very fuzzy indeed until we look at them when they crystallise into something tangible Admittedly , saying that things are fuzzy unless we look at them begs the question -'how the hell do we know that they are fuzzy if we are not looking?' QM is largely in th emind it seems
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 8, 2010 14:01:29 GMT 1
No it isn't -- it's the interaction with the classical object that is the measuring device, whether or not it was placed there by a conscious observer.
Just re-stating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 8, 2010 14:08:47 GMT 1
No it isn't -- it's the interaction with the classical object that is the measuring device, whether or not it was placed there by a conscious observer. Just re-stating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Not very logical are you? In QM we simply do not knoe the quantum status unless we observe - whether the observing is due to a deliberate experiment or by accident. Stop being so stubbornly obtuse.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 8, 2010 16:02:58 GMT 1
No it isn't -- it's the interaction with the classical object that is the measuring device, whether or not it was placed there by a conscious observer. Just re-stating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. STA, you keep overlooking the fact that in any observation/measurement, without the element of an 'intelligent' observer it cannot be called an 'observation.' What is going to complete a scientific observation without someone there - an instrument? No, because to actually finalise the observation someone has to examine what the instrument has 'undergone.' Do not forget that there is a very important link between what state an instrument is in and the interpretation of that state through human sensory/conceptual apparatus - the two are not equivalent dear, so when naymissus says QM is in the mind he is partially, at least, correct.
|
|