|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 8, 2010 17:19:51 GMT 1
It was wrong when you first stated it, and it is still wrong!
Consciousness causes collpase is only one possible interpretation of quantum theory, rather than the only logically possible one, as you keep maintaining. Else we wouldn't need to be having this discussion -- except of course you've never even attempted to have the actual discussion, just repeated ad nauseam observation means observer means consciousness, and then just tried to throw assorted insults at any one who has the temerity to disagree with your nonsense. Rather like the rather unsavoury defence mechanism of fulmars..............
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 8, 2010 17:45:53 GMT 1
It was wrong when you first stated it, and it is still wrong! Consciousness causes collpase is only one possible interpretation of quantum theory, rather than the only logically possible one, as you keep maintaining. Else we wouldn't need to be having this discussion -- except of course you've never even attempted to have the actual discussion, just repeated ad nauseam observation means observer means consciousness, and then just tried to throw assorted insults at any one who has the temerity to disagree with your nonsense. Rather like the rather unsavoury defence mechanism of fulmars.............. Ok, let me ask you a question. Let's say an experimenter sets up a scientific experiment in order to test some QM idea. Now he/she goes away and allows the experiment to proceed by itself. The crucial problem is this: if the experimenter or for that matter anyone else in the world does not bother to return to the set up and actually 'look' and interpret the results can we really say an observation has taken place? You see, unless experimental data is seen and understood by people or, perhaps, intelligent alien species, there can be no interpretation and therefore no more scientific progress so that whatever the results, the experiment has been useless and rendered sterile. The point is an instrument cannot understandhow and why it has changed its state and so it would be meaningless to say, therefore, that an 'observation' has taken place. So here we have a deeper definition of what an observations is, viz. a way of organizing reality using consciousness (perceptions, intellect and so on) to 'feed back' into the universe in order to modify it. You only have to look at how Homo-Sapiens have modified their environment over time to see this is true. Another point here is that the wavefunction is only a mathematical idea with which to describe the behaviour of quantum 'events.' It is only as real as our minds allow it to be which rather ties in with my earlier point about what an observation is and again tends to support naymissus' view that QM is 'in the mind.' Also, when you say that consciousness causes collapse is but one interpretation, yes, but you and many others overlook the fact that no matter which interpretation you consider it all hinges on us being able to observe and measure and think about it in the first place so, again, you inevitably return to consciousness. All roads lead to it!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 8, 2010 20:11:35 GMT 1
You are taking what MAY be two disparate processes (collapse of the wavefunction and us knowing the results of an experiment), and assuming they are the SAME process. This need not be the case, physical arguments extrapolating from known quantum theory indicate this need not be the case (quantum decoherence, gravity etc), whereas the converse (making consciousness cause the collapse of wavefunctions) adds additional assumptions (what is consciousness, dunno, but it does some magic that no other physidcal process can do!), and frankly is neither a better explanation, nor a likely explanation. I've said all this before, and just restating YET AGAIN the same empty assumption gets you nowhere.
You keep claiming I've forgotten something when I haven't, whereas you can't look beyind the assumption of a single process, because that is what you WANT to be the answer.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Nov 9, 2010 22:04:45 GMT 1
Evenin' all. Excuse my idleness, or lack of patience, but I got bored with ploughing through all this thread at page 3, so forgive me if I point out the already thrashed over.
As far as I'm aware, Schrodinger did not subscribe to the probabilistic interpretation of his wavefunction. The idea that it "collapsed" on being observed he thought absurd - hence the cat paradox, a reductio ad absurdam, as nay/Joe/Peter whatever he's called here pointed out. Neither, in reference to the slit experiment described, did he believe in the wave/particle duality. His interpretation referred to waves only - real waves, not mathematical abstract ones, but ontologically existent ones, in a world independent of observers, a realist rationalist world, the same sort of apples and pears world of Being that Einstein believed in.
That he could do this perfectly consistently, without paradox or contradiction from any of the formalism of "quantum theory", is a clear enough indication - as if any were needed - that Philosophy is precisely what has been lacking in the world of Physics. How else does StA propose such alternative interpretations are to be evaluated or even discussed?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 10, 2010 14:04:41 GMT 1
How to evaluate them? Using the normal scientific process.
The reality of the wavefunction..........Well, when feeling a bit tired, many physicists would subscribe to the -- don't worry about all that, using the wavefunction just tells you how to predict the probabilities of various measurements, so lets just do the calculations, and then go do the experiments to test it.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 11, 2010 11:08:59 GMT 1
How to evaluate them? Using the normal scientific process. The reality of the wavefunction..........Well, when feeling a bit tired, many physicists would subscribe to the -- don't worry about all that, using the wavefunction just tells you how to predict the probabilities of various measurements, so lets just do the calculations, and then go do the experiments to test it. The wavefunction never used to exist before someone invented it so here we see that what we consider as 'matter' is no more than an idea. This can only lead to one conclusion: objective reality is no more than how our minds describe it and that the only certain conclusion we can make is that energy is the only certainty in life (and possibly death). The fact that you, in common with many other scientists, like to sweep this under the carpet doesn't make it go away.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 11, 2010 13:34:29 GMT 1
The wavefunction is just one way to represent mathematically what is going on. But that doesn't mean that what it represents didn't exist before someone wrote it down.
Nor does it mean that reality changes when we come up with new physics, as you seem to think it will............
Just as I'm pretty sure most people would have grasped the reality of a force, before anyone wrote F=ma.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 11, 2010 14:10:16 GMT 1
F=ma. Now, what is mass? Mass is just another form of energy and, of course, acceleration is a form of energy also, so we come back to what I was saying, i.e. that matter and therefore reality is just energy. When you examine matter at the smallest scales all you find are probabilities, nothing tangible or 'set in stone', but waves of potential which really are nothing more than an idea, ergo, 'reality' is really just a set of ideas. This must be true because how could, say, a dead physicist make measurements of quantum objects?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 11, 2010 16:50:45 GMT 1
Total twaddle.
The importance of mass here is not whether or not it is energy, but the fact it is inertia.
Acceleration isn't energy, kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2. Accleleration is change of state of motion..............
Why you seem to think that anything indeterminate can be called an idea is beyond me. Before a horse race, the winner is unknown, and each horse is potentially a winner. Once one has won, then they aren't ideas anymore than the original horses were.
Waves of potential (wrong use of potential BTW) aren't just ideas, but predict the likelihood of definite, physical events. The cat is dead, or the cat is alive, it either lies there are decomposes, or it scratches your face off. And that isn't an idea...........
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 11, 2010 18:36:19 GMT 1
Total twaddle. The importance of mass here is not whether or not it is energy, but the fact it is inertia. Why? Change of state of energy, surely. Physical events only appear to be physical because we have trained our minds, or our minds have been trained by society, to give them an independent existence. The physical world is part of an entangled relationship with consciousness and would have no real existence in the absence of it. A dead scientist, for example, has no consciousness and, therefore, cannot interact with anything at all, even a physical brain. This is why the famous dead cat paradox is so puzzling because it is a scenario that arises from conscious attempts to make sense of quantum indeterminism but is outside of 'normal' experiences of life that most people have been conditioned to. In other words, 'commonsense' keeps getting in the way of the insights that the study of QM has given to us in terms of what consciousness really is. Dead people do not normally perceive the physical world because their consciousness has ceased, or at least moved on to another plane, so that if everyone living in the world at present suddenly disappeared, objective reality (in terms of how human beings perceive it) would also cease.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 11, 2010 18:42:26 GMT 1
More tangled quantum woo-woo nonsense!
You seem to forget that a dead scientist can certainly interact -- the bugs eat him, he is interacting with his surroundings!
It's an ASSUMPTION, one that you have not proved, and one that leads to slightly daft conclusions anyway. Which is why most sensible people prefer one of the many alternatives to the 'consciousness is magic' stuff.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat your religious mantra, still won't give it any other status than a minority (and discredited) possibility amongst many possibilities...............
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 11, 2010 19:54:17 GMT 1
More tangled quantum woo-woo nonsense! You seem to forget that a dead scientist can certainly interact -- the bugs eat him, he is interacting with his surroundings! It's an ASSUMPTION, one that you have not proved, and one that leads to slightly daft conclusions anyway. Which is why most sensible people prefer one of the many alternatives to the 'consciousness is magic' stuff. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat your religious mantra, still won't give it any other status than a minority (and discredited) possibility amongst many possibilities............... A simple question for you: Was it possible to arrange a scientific experiments (involving all the paraphernalia that implies) when there were just simple life-forms about on earth? (Disregard intelligent aliens).
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 11, 2010 22:25:16 GMT 1
Why do you keep asking the SAME questions?
The point being, all that distinguishes a scientific experiment from natural processes, is that we tend to tidy things up a bit, so we can look at exactly (and only) what we want to look at.
But nature manages quite good experiments on her own, such as evolution of life, stellar evolution, and even natural fission reactors in rocks under rather weird conditions when uranium ore and natural ground water did just the right thing......................
Because aside form all this, your supposed 'question' just reduces to:
1) It ain't an experiment unless we set it up
2) It ain't observed unless we observe it
Both of which ONLY matter if you have made the usual mistake that observation or measurement implies an observer, and that since we are conscious obersvers (add usual tosh here...........).
Its totally pointless, it always was, you have no arguments, and continuing this is just a total waste of time (not that it was ever much else frankly!).
Let's be serious, there are at least TWO options:
1) Observation means an observer
2) Observation means a system interacting with a macroscopic object etc etc.
You without seeing beyond observation means observer, keep repeating the first one ad nauseam. And that's it for your posts, intellectuial and information content fast aproaching zero............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 12, 2010 10:52:03 GMT 1
Why do you keep asking the SAME questions? The point being, all that distinguishes a scientific experiment from natural processes, is that we tend to tidy things up a bit, so we can look at exactly (and only) what we want to look at. But nature manages quite good experiments on her own, ...................... But the sole purpose of experiment is an attempt to falsify an hypothesis. To suggest that nature is attempting to falsify hypotheses is arrant nonsens - gobbledeygook once more Let's be serious, there are at least TWO options: 1) Observation means an observer 2) Observation means a system interacting with a macroscopic object etc etc. You without seeing beyond observation means observer, keep repeating the first one ad nauseam. And that's it for your posts, intellectuial and information content fast aproaching zero............ The first option has stand-alone validity The second 'option' is not valid without the first option. It is possible to observe without a system interacting with a macroscopic object It is not possible to observe with just a system interacting with a macroscopic object unless 'obsercver' is implicit in 'system' You argue fine points of the Englsih language without having any apparent aptitude in Englsih
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 12, 2010 11:16:50 GMT 1
Yes, as usual STA seeks to obfuscate the issue by erecting a smoke sceen of irrelevancy.
She is trying to pretend that nature can conduct experiments in its own right and be aware of the implications. Clearly nonsensical. If it were true then human beings would not be necessary to create a technological world.
|
|