Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Quantum weirdness in 'chicken or egg' paradox

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

John Allanson
11 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

"I don't understand this" would have been quicker to type

I do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Allanson
14 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

"I don't understand this" would have been quicker to type

Understanding my statement first you have to understand a quality of humans to see the funny side of interesting paradoxes. Secondly you need to understand that I wasn't talking of the egg or the chicken, although how the physicists can make that a paradox I find amusing and to me compares hilariously with the same thing that happens in quantum physics and their paradoxes. As for understanding the the article, to me there can be no other answer than the chicken was pre-dated by billions of years, and by land based animals about 300 million years. No paradox there. But as your understanding doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

Edited by John Allanson
Change out to pre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
15 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

You were doing so well until you used the words "higher", "ordered" and "consciousness". 

Read up on it, you might be surprised.  Quantum probabilities, or wave functions, only collapse when consciously observed.  And so far that observation seems to require a conscious observation not just a mechanical one.  In other words, the level of consciousness to collapse a quantum probability must be sufficient enough to recognize the observation on a quantum level within the observer's consciousness.  You can't just observe the quantum effect without any understanding of what's being observed.  Thus, it requires a "higher ordered consciousness."  A mouse performing the observation doesn't seem to collapse the quantum wave functions and neither does the cat in the Schrodingers box.

An interesting article to read might be: "https://www.thoughtco.com/is-consciousness-related-to-quantum-physics-2698801"

The quantum scale of the universe is quite fascinating and strange.  Interestingly, it fits quite well into many aspects of the philosophically/theologically spiritual models of existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Allanson
16 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

"I don't understand this" would have been quicker to type

Understanding my statement first you have to understand a quality of humans to see the funny side of interesting paradoxes. Secondly you need to understand that I wasn't talking of the egg or the chicken, although how the physicists can make that a paradox I find amusing and to me compares hilariously with the same thing that happens in quantum physics and their paradoxes. As for understanding the the article, to me there can be no other answer than the chicken was outdated by half a billion of years and land based creatures by 300 million years.. No paradox there. But as your understanding doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Read up on it, you might be surprised.  Quantum probabilities, or wave functions, only collapse when consciously observed.  And so far that observation seems to require a conscious observation not just a mechanical one.  In other words, the level of consciousness to collapse a quantum probability must be sufficient enough to recognize the observation on a quantum level within the observer's consciousness.  You can't just observe the quantum effect without any understanding of what's being observed.  Thus, it requires a "higher ordered consciousness."  A mouse performing the observation doesn't seem to collapse the quantum wave functions and neither does the cat in the Schrodingers box.

An interesting article to read might be: "https://www.thoughtco.com/is-consciousness-related-to-quantum-physics-2698801"

The quantum scale of the universe is quite fascinating and strange.  Interestingly, it fits quite well into many aspects of the philosophically/theologically spiritual models of existence. 

That's nonsense, it's the measurement devices doing the observations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

That's nonsense, it's the measurement devices doing the observations.

No, it's the measurement device that is interacting with the field, it is not doing the "observations". 

The collapse of the field takes place in two phases.  One of which creates a unitary mixed state and the other which completes the collapse to a particular non-unitary outcome.

The measurement of the overall quantum field, and the first phase of the collapse, just results in a mixed state of coupled quantum probabilities when looking at either the pointer or the quantum aspects of the coupling.  But this is still a unitary state when you consider the entire wave function of the combined system and describes no specific outcome in relation to the entire wave function interaction.  This state is not predictive to a particular outcome, it's only predictive of unitary probabilities of a group of outcomes. 

The second phase of the collapse of the field happens when a consciousness measures/observes the outcome.  It is only at that point that the unitary state of the field no longer exists.  What happened to the mixed state of the unitary probabilities that existed just prior to the conscious observation of the outcome?  They're gone!  And they're gone only because of a conscious observer taking notice of the outcome.

I think what happens with most people who take a classical approach to QM is that they get as far as the mathematical model and then stop, as if there's nothing more to see here, without consideration of the limits of that model in the full collapse of the quantum field into an observed outcome.

And although my understanding of this science is relatively basic to an actual physicist, I am fascinated by it and find the topic most interesting and I love reading about the many interpretations of quantum theory.  To me, consciousness is a key aspect of the theory of classical QM even if it's not key to the limited mathematical model of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Noxasa said:

No, it's the measurement device that is interacting with the field, it is not doing the "observations". 

The collapse of the field takes place in two phases.  One of which creates a unitary mixed state and the other which completes the collapse to a particular non-unitary outcome.

The measurement of the overall quantum field, and the first phase of the collapse, just results in a mixed state of coupled quantum probabilities when looking at either the pointer or the quantum aspects of the coupling.  But this is still a unitary state when you consider the entire wave function of the combined system and describes no specific outcome in relation to the entire wave function interaction.  This state is not predictive to a particular outcome, it's only predictive of unitary probabilities of a group of outcomes. 

The second phase of the collapse of the field happens when a consciousness measures/observes the outcome.  It is only at that point that the unitary state of the field no longer exists.  What happened to the mixed state of the unitary probabilities that existed just prior to the conscious observation of the outcome?  They're gone!  And they're gone only because of a conscious observer taking notice of the outcome.

I think what happens with most people who take a classical approach to QM is that they get as far as the mathematical model and then stop, as if there's nothing more to see here, without consideration of the limits of that model in the full collapse of the quantum field into an observed outcome.

 

Prove it. You can't.

Are under the impression that phenomenon at a quantum level don't happen when your not looking? If that's the case we'd have no big bang, no Universe and no quantum gravity.

1 hour ago, Noxasa said:

And although my understanding of this science is relatively basic to an actual physicist, I am fascinated by it and find the topic most interesting and I love reading about the many interpretations of quantum theory.  To me, consciousness is a key aspect of the theory of classical QM even if it's not key to the limited mathematical model of the same.

I'm a physicist. Currently researching silicon photonics and done other research in possible applications for virtual particles.

I tend to disagree with the interpretation that for phenomenon to take place at a quantum level a conscious bring is needed.

It's equivalent to saying the sun doesn't exist when I look away.

This is where the heart of the issue arises, in my opinion, people are under the impression thst a wave function us a physical object, this is a misconception. Or a better way to say it is that people think the wave function is the same thing as the object it's being used to describe. A wave function is not real, thus a conscious mind is required to conceive it, thus only a conscious mind can observe it. What really matters is the uncertainty principle, if uncertainty was eliminated we wouldn't be discussing this. But anyway I digress. So only a conscious mind can collapse a thing that only exists within an abstract world. For example compare say an atom to a wave function. An atom is tangible, it has mass, it's observable, it has spin etcetera, a wave function only exists in an abstract mathematical 'world', a wave function is a statistical function or description of all information available to the observer, by observer I mean person. So when we measure something the wave function describes we get more information so it's obviously going to change ie collapse.

LikeI said remove uncertainty, remove the observer effect your ascribing to. While I accept we will never eliminate uncertainty or experimental error, I also understand that you have not full grasped what a wave function is, as have many others who don't have a mathematical background to understand it.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Read up on it, you might be surprised.

You should do more reading then, because you have no idea what you are taking about.

 

11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Quantum probabilities, or wave functions, only collapse when consciously observed.  And so far that observation seems to require a conscious observation not just a mechanical one.  In other words, the level of consciousness to collapse a quantum probability must be sufficient enough to recognize the observation on a quantum level within the observer's consciousness.  You can't just observe the quantum effect without any understanding of what's being observed.  Thus, it requires a "higher ordered consciousness."

You're describing the (in)famous von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, which Wigner himself later abandoned.

Experiments have shown a mechanical "observation" has the same effect of collapsing the wave function. 

 

11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

  A mouse performing the observation doesn't seem to collapse the quantum wave functions and neither does the cat in the Schrodingers box.

Rubbish, a non-conscious device can.

Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment, it never happened because it was designed to be ridiculous. Most explanations have the wave function collapsing long before the box is open. 

 

11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

An interesting article to read might be: "https://www.thoughtco.com/is-consciousness-related-to-quantum-physics-2698801"

The quantum scale of the universe is quite fascinating and strange.  Interestingly, it fits quite well into many aspects of the philosophically/theologically spiritual models of existence. 

No, you're talking about quantum quackery. Not really that strange considering it's peddled by new agers to confirm their magical thinking.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Nzo

The chicken came first, reproduction is a process by which the chicken replicates itself. Its like saying what came first the human or the embryo? If we go back in time before the chicken laid eggs it would reproduce using a different method but the Chicken was always there. In the future the chicken may evolve and give live birth instead of eggs again the chicken remains the process by which it replicates has changed. It is the most idiot paradox ever. It supposed to have people reflect on cause and effect but when you understand whats going on you realize the people that came up with the paradox had a very limited understanding of biology and evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
9 hours ago, danydandan said:

Prove it. You can't.

Are under the impression that phenomenon at a quantum level don't happen when your not looking? If that's the case we'd have no big bang, no Universe and no quantum gravity.

I'm a physicist. Currently researching silicon photonics and done other research in possible applications for virtual particles.

I tend to disagree with the interpretation that for phenomenon to take place at a quantum level a conscious bring is needed.

It's equivalent to saying the sun doesn't exist when I look away.

This is where the heart of the issue arises, in my opinion, people are under the impression thst a wave function us a physical object, this is a misconception. Or a better way to say it is that people think the wave function is the same thing as the object it's being used to describe. A wave function is not real, thus a conscious mind is required to conceive it, thus only a conscious mind can observe it. What really matters is the uncertainty principle, if uncertainty was eliminated we wouldn't be discussing this. But anyway I digress. So only a conscious mind can collapse a thing that only exists within an abstract world. For example compare say an atom to a wave function. An atom is tangible, it has mass, it's observable, it has spin etcetera, a wave function only exists in an abstract mathematical 'world', a wave function is a statistical function or description of all information available to the observer, by observer I mean person. So when we measure something the wave function describes we get more information so it's obviously going to change ie collapse.

LikeI said remove uncertainty, remove the observer effect your ascribing to. While I accept we will never eliminate uncertainty or experimental error, I also understand that you have not full grasped what a wave function is, as have many others who don't have a mathematical background to understand it.

The reality is you can't prove consciousness plays no role in the collapse either.  If it could be "proven" either way. it would have been done a long time ago.  All I'm doing is outlining the logic to show that there's more to the collapse than just the Copenhagen interpretation provides.  That the conscious observation of the outcome removes the unitary uncertainty from the quantum process of the collapse.  And, as you know, I'm not the only one who sees this aspect of quantum mechanics this way, as some very well known physicists have also tried to describe the obvious logic behind the necessity of consciousness (i.e. von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, etc.)  It's logically clear that there's a difference, within the quantum perspective, between the uncertainty of the unitary mixed state of pointer/outcome couplings of an entire quantum system and the non-unitary state of the outcome once it is observed by a conscious measurement.  It's like dealing out a poker hand and not looking at the cards.  There's a distinct quantumly logical difference between the time the cards are face down on the table (the unitary system) and the time someone picks them up to assess their hand (the non-unitary outcome.)  That's the whole point of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox and why that paradox applies to the chicken and the egg conundrum.  Just because the math cannot model that difference between these two distinctly separate states of the quantum state doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  

As for being a physicist or not.  Although I'm not a physicist, I am a degree carrying mathematician and work in a scientific field so I'm not completely oblivious to the scientific concepts involved and I don't think you have to be a physicist to have a valid opinion on the subject.  I just think a lot of physicists get wrapped up in the math and object to anything that doesn't fit into those models.  And although ignoring conscious measurement works well in classical mechanics, it clearly doesn't completely describe the system in quantum mechanics.  My views come from the analysis of physicists like von Neumann, and those that followed, and I'm not egotistical enough to think I can argue the logic better than they did, do or can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
6 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

You should do more reading then, because you have no idea what you are taking about.

 

You're describing the (in)famous von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, which Wigner himself later abandoned.

Experiments have shown a mechanical "observation" has the same effect of collapsing the wave function. 

 

Rubbish, a non-conscious device can.

Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment, it never happened because it was designed to be ridiculous. Most explanations have the wave function collapsing long before the box is open. 

 

No, you're talking about quantum quackery. Not really that strange considering it's peddled by new agers to confirm their magical thinking.

Okay, if you say so.  I'm not trying to force anything into a concept of Quantum quackery.  You say that the science has proven that consciousness doesn't apply to the field collapse.  I say, show me where that is proven?

And I see no evidence in Eugene's writings that he abandoned consciousness as part of the collapse.  In fact, just before his death in his collection of essays titled "Symmetries and Reflections - Scientific Essays" (published in 1995 the year he died) he commented: "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." So I don't know what you're referring to by saying he abandoned the concept, he clearly did not!

Edited by Noxasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
35 minutes ago, Noxasa said:

The reality is you can't prove consciousness plays no role in the collapse either.  If it could be "proven" either way. it would have been done a long time ago.  All I'm doing is outlining the logic to show that there's more to the collapse than just the Copenhagen interpretation provides.  That the conscious observation of the outcome removes the unitary uncertainty from the quantum process of the collapse.  And, as you know, I'm not the only one who sees this aspect of quantum mechanics this way, as some very well known physicists have also tried to describe the obvious logic behind the necessity of consciousness (i.e. von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, etc.)  It's logically clear that there's a difference, within the quantum perspective, between the uncertainty of the unitary mixed state of pointer/outcome couplings of an entire quantum system and the non-unitary state of the outcome once it is observed by a conscious measurement.  It's like dealing out a poker hand and not looking at the cards.  There's a distinct quantumly logical difference between the time the cards are face down on the table (the unitary system) and the time someone picks them up to assess their hand (the non-unitary outcome.)  That's the whole point of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox and why that paradox applies to the chicken and the egg conundrum.  Just because the math cannot model that difference between these two distinctly separate states of the quantum state doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  

As for being a physicist or not.  Although I'm not a physicist, I am a degree carrying mathematician and work in a scientific field so I'm not completely oblivious to the scientific concepts involved and I don't think you have to be a physicist to have a valid opinion on the subject.  I just think a lot of physicists get wrapped up in the math and object to anything that doesn't fit into those models.  And although ignoring conscious measurement works well in classical mechanics, it clearly doesn't completely describe the system in quantum mechanics.  My views come from the analysis of physicists like von Neumann, and those that followed, and I'm not egotistical enough to think I can argue the logic better than they did, do or can.

I don't think so, I think the Copenhagen interpretation is pretty good. But I am in the many world's camp with a bit of hidden variable interpretation. I'm probably more agreeable to the point of view thst Quantum Mechanics is invariably incomplete.

I understand that each notion is unfalsifiable and both interpretations have led to different viable fields. Like superconductivity etc.

However as an applied physicist I'd have to ascribe to what's the most observable and what's the most likely to be probable.

I'll say it again, a wave function isn't real. It's an abstract construct brought about by uncertainty.

And yes I agree, one doesn't have to hold a PhD or a masters to understand quantum mechanics. But I believe you need a certain level of Mathematics to full grasp it.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
6 hours ago, danydandan said:

Interesting articles of which I'm still reading and digesting.

I did, however, find it amusing when they wrote in the first article, "All well and good, except that there were no primordial observers to collapse the wave functions of those initial particles and create their uneven distributions in the first place. Believe the most popular interpretation of quantum theory, and the star-filled universe that we live in could never have existed.  It was this conundrum that spurred Sudarsky into action in the early 2000s. “I wanted to describe the universe 13 billion years ago, when there certainly weren’t any sentient beings, unless you want to invoke God,” he says. “Which we don’t.” 

LOL, so let's not even consider the possibility of an outside observing consciousness, that sounds like real good science, let's just throw that possibility away out of hand, a possible input to the system because I don't like it.  *shakes head*

I'll keep reading.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
6 hours ago, danydandan said:

Seems like a lot of effort just to try to imply, or more like just disregard out of hand, an outside conscious observer to the universe.  Objective collapse theory seems like an attempt to create a mechanism that does not require a conscious observer just because they don't like that concept, not because it's inherently or objectively (pardon the pun) an invalid concept.  And although objective collapse theory certainly seems like a worthwhile path of study in quantum mechanics it just seems to me to be just as unprovable a hypothesis as the outside conscious observer hypothesis (i.e. God.)  And because of this, they could never know if their objective collapse theory is just a way of mathematically describing the interactions of an outside conscious observer.  How would they know that an outside conscious observer was not involved in an objective collapse event, if that event is even real?  They wouldn't be able to show that either way.   And then, as mentioned in the article, there's that "why does the field collapse spontaneously" aspect of objective collapse theory that doesn't add anything to the current interpretations of quantum mechanics other than to blindly ignore that pesky consciousness aspect of current interpretations of QM that they despise so much.

Quote

Interesting article which would take time to fully understand.  I like the idea that gravity is a decent candidate for the concept of how a quantum wave form can spontaneously collapse.  Namely, because of its all encompassing nature in the universe and thus, would be a decent analog to the outside the universe consciousness concept in QM.  However, the paper argues against this concept so I'm going to have to read more carefully to understand why they come to that conclusion.  And even if it were true then there are other problems related to our rather poor understanding of what gravity actually is and does it really get around the consciousness aspect of QM interpretations.  I don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
3 hours ago, Nzo said:

The chicken came first, reproduction is a process by which the chicken replicates itself. Its like saying what came first the human or the embryo? If we go back in time before the chicken laid eggs it would reproduce using a different method but the Chicken was always there. In the future the chicken may evolve and give live birth instead of eggs again the chicken remains the process by which it replicates has changed. It is the most idiot paradox ever. It supposed to have people reflect on cause and effect but when you understand whats going on you realize the people that came up with the paradox had a very limited understanding of biology and evolution.

Some time in the past, an animal that was almost a chicken, laid an egg and that eggs DNA had a slight mutation, giving bith to the first chicken. So the egg came first.

The only way you can argue that the chicken was allways there, is if you believe in some kind of intelligent design instead of evolution and in that case the question is moot anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Seems like a lot of effort just to try to imply, or more like just disregard out of hand, an outside conscious observer to the universe.  Objective collapse theory seems like an attempt to create a mechanism that does not require a conscious observer just because they don't like that concept, not because it's inherently or objectively (pardon the pun) an invalid concept.  And although objective collapse theory certainly seems like a worthwhile path of study in quantum mechanics it just seems to me to be just as unprovable a hypothesis as the outside conscious observer hypothesis (i.e. God.)  And because of this, they could never know if their objective collapse theory is just a way of mathematically describing the interactions of an outside conscious observer.  How would they know that an outside conscious observer was not involved in an objective collapse event, if that event is even real?  They wouldn't be able to show that either way.   And then, as mentioned in the article, there's that "why does the field collapse spontaneously" aspect of objective collapse theory that doesn't add anything to the current interpretations of quantum mechanics other than to blindly ignore that pesky consciousness aspect of current interpretations of QM that they despise so much.

Interesting article which would take time to fully understand.  I like the idea that gravity is a decent candidate for the concept of how a quantum wave form can spontaneously collapse.  Namely, because of its all encompassing nature in the universe and thus, would be a decent analog to the outside the universe consciousness concept in QM.  However, the paper argues against this concept so I'm going to have to read more carefully to understand why they come to that conclusion.  And even if it were true then there are other problems related to our rather poor understanding of what gravity actually is and does it really get around the consciousness aspect of QM interpretations.  I don't know. 

That's my point, you can't advocate for one particular interpretation as they are all incomplete.

Basically its all unfalsifiable nonsense, stop the philosophical arguments and calculate as they say.

My assertion is that if we can eliminate uncertainty of measurements and experimental error we wouldn't have all these arguments.

However I will say I'm slightly bias, as my PhD is in Applied Physics, so I like my theories to be observable. And I prefer my physics classical.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Okay, if you say so.  I'm not trying to force anything into a concept of Quantum quackery.  You say that the science has proven that consciousness doesn't apply to the field collapse.  I say, show me where that is proven?

That's not what I said. I said consciousness isn't required.

You said only consciousness can "collapse the wave function". Therefore you need to invoke "von Neumann chains" because as far as I'm aware it's impossible for a human (conscious or not) to directly observe single particles.

11 hours ago, Noxasa said:

And I see no evidence in Eugene's writings that he abandoned consciousness as part of the collapse.  In fact, just before his death in his collection of essays titled "Symmetries and Reflections - Scientific Essays" (published in 1995 the year he died) he commented: "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." So I don't know what you're referring to by saying he abandoned the concept, he clearly did not!

Wigner believed "consciousness causes collapse" leads to solipsism.

https://www.unil.ch/files/live/sites/philo/files/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/1999/SHPMP99.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 09/09/2018 at 3:55 AM, Noxasa said:

Read up on it, you might be surprised. 

I know plenty about quantum physics thank you, and definitely enough to know it's nothing to do with a "conscious observer". That's Deepak Chopra levels of woo. It's a complete misreading of the science.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
15 hours ago, danydandan said:

That's my point, you can't advocate for one particular interpretation as they are all incomplete.

Basically its all unfalsifiable nonsense, stop the philosophical arguments and calculate as they say.

My assertion is that if we can eliminate uncertainty of measurements and experimental error we wouldn't have all these arguments.

However I will say I'm slightly bias, as my PhD is in Applied Physics, so I like my theories to be observable. And I prefer my physics classical.

I'm curious what school of thought you accept, if any, in the area of Quantum Mechanics?

What if it's simply impossible to eliminate uncertainty in measurements because uncertainty really is the way the universe works, even in trying to measure the same?

You ever look at the experiments of Dean Radin Ph.D?  Although I don't believe in the paranormal or psychics or ghosts or UFOs I am open to any evidence that may point to such things as being real.  I don't even think any human beings really know how to tap into any concept of directed conscious thought but I do find his experiments to be interesting and I do see the logic in consciousness being a valid player in the area of the collapsing wave function in QM.  Of course these conclusions just come from though experiments I've studied, but it does make sense logically. 

Dr. Radin seems to think humans can direct this interaction and cause the collapse and if his studies are accurate than it does seem like directed consciousness, not just passive consciousness, has something to do with our perceptions of QM outcomes.  I'm just waiting for other studies to either validate or nullify his studies.  I do know some have tried and failed but as far as I can tell none have followed his experimental protocols so it could just be scientists doing peer validation it wrong.  He certainly seem qualified to do the science and doesn't seem like a fraud or someone trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, he really believes in his scientific work.  

As a result of that incomplete science, however, my opinion is just based on the thought experiments and logic at this time.  In the coming decades or centuries I'm sure the truth will be hammered out and I think it will fall in the area of some level of perceptual conscious collapse of the uncertanty.  I don't question that measurement instrumentation do affect a partial collapse of the wave function to a set of possible outcomes, I just don't think that collapse leads to a state that can be perceived without a further process interaction that makes that initial collapse perceptible to consciousness.

Finally, when you throw in effects like entanglement and tunneling (and more) the processes of which are not even understood yet, you must realize that there's more going on than just measurement error and uncertainty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
14 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

That's not what I said. I said consciousness isn't required.

You said only consciousness can "collapse the wave function". Therefore you need to invoke "von Neumann chains" because as far as I'm aware it's impossible for a human (conscious or not) to directly observe single particles.

Wigner believed "consciousness causes collapse" leads to solipsism.

https://www.unil.ch/files/live/sites/philo/files/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/1999/SHPMP99.pdf

I'm not saying consciousness causes collapse in and of itself either (pending validation of the Dr. Radin experiments,) I'm just saying it's part of the collapse that leads to a single perceptive outcome.  Prior to conscious perception, the state of the quantum field can still be uncertain until it is perceived.  You tell me that I'm wrong but don't give me any reason why.  As a result I have to stay with what I've studied as being accurate to the science.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
10 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

I know plenty about quantum physics thank you, and definitely enough to know it's nothing to do with a "conscious observer". That's Deepak Chopra levels of woo. It's a complete misreading of the science.

Whatever Deepak Chopra's levels of woo are.  Thanks for your opinion.  I'll keep it in mind even though your retort offers no information to even make me consider changing my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Im curious what school of thought you accept, if any, in the area of Quantum Mechanics?

What if it's simply impossible to eliminate uncertainty in measurements because uncertainty really is the way the universe works, even in trying to measure the same?

The issue with ascribing to one single interpretation is your instantaneously bias, and will effect your conclusions. With that being said I tend to agree with a number of different things, primarily many world's, hidden variables and the general incompleteness of the field.

It's impossible and will always be impossible to eliminate uncertainty and error.

8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

You ever look at the experiments of Dean Radin Ph.D?  Although I don't believe in the paranormal or psychics or ghosts or UFOs I am open to any evidence that may point to such things as being real.  I don't even think any human beings really know how to tap into any concept of directed conscious thought but I do find his experiments to be interesting and I do see the logic in consciousness being a valid player in the area of the collapsing wave function in QM.  Of course these conclusions just come from though experiments I've studied, but it does make sense logically. 

Dr. Radin seems to think humans can direct this interaction and cause the collapse and if his studies are accurate than it does seem like directed consciousness, not just passive consciousness, has something to do with our perceptions of QM outcomes.  I'm just waiting for other studies to either validate or nullify his studies.  I do know some have tried and failed but as far as I can tell none have followed his experimental protocols so it could just be scientists doing peer validation it wrong.  He certainly seem qualified to do the science and doesn't seem like a fraud or someone trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, he really believes in his scientific work.  

Your still speaking like a wave function is a tangible object. It isn't its a mathematical construct.

I don't know anything about Dr Radin, or his research. So I can't comment.

8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

As a result of that incomplete science, however, my opinion is just based on the thought experiments and logic at this time.  In the coming decades or centuries I'm sure the truth will be hammered out and I think it will fall in the area of some level of perceptual conscious collapse of the uncertanty.  I don't question that measurement instrumentation do affect a partial collapse of the wave function to a set of possible outcomes, I just don't think that collapse leads to a state that can be perceived without a further process interaction that makes that initial collapse perceptible to consciousness.

I think you'll find the only real logical conclusion to our observations is we don't know, yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

I'm not saying consciousness causes collapse in and of itself either (pending validation of the Dr. Radin experiments,) I'm just saying it's part of the collapse that leads to a single perceptive outcome.  Prior to conscious perception, the state of the quantum field can still be uncertain until it is perceived.  You tell me that I'm wrong but don't give me any reason why.  As a result I have to stay with what I've studied as being accurate to the science.  

I've already given you reasons. Detection devices fulfill the role of "observer", human's can't directly observe quantum states.

By the sounds of it you believe superposition scales up to large scales, until a human sees it. That is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Isn't Dean Radin the Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences? The same Institute of Noetic Sciences which promotes "What the Bleep Do We Know!?"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.