The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
This seems to be a good thing because otherwise you end up in a solipsistic universe, where you personally are a cause of the Big Bang and all 13 and a bit billion years of everything that happened afterwards. (For varying and approximate values of 'you', at least.)
Assuming consciousness is essential seems to be another spin around the implicit dualism of mind over matter. Although it looks as if it's saying that mind and matter are linked, the implication is really that matter only appears when mind decides it does - which could be a little bit suspect, I think.
How much of a mind do you need before it's conscious enough to start deciding observables?
There's a neat paradox which says that if you try to kill yourself in a quantum experiment, you can't do it. If you did you wouldn't be able to observe the result of the experiment. So it would never happen.
Your colleagues meanwhile can see a quantum suicide note, and possibly a dead body.
Back to the beginning, consciousness is not essential but unless a conscious observer is involved, philosophical problems with quantum mechanics seem rather mild to nonexistent, which again suggest a philosophical problem, not a problem with quantum mechanics. The central question is: how are entanglement or interference perceived? Remember Bohr's "no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon". We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
There are 41 statements to the Woo Woo credo, many of which demonstrate that it is a term coming out of Usenet flamewars--or somesuch. To understand if a person is a woo woo, one would have to run their comments via the list--and if they matched up, you can then call them "woo woos" and start an argument--it's an argumentative term, with some humour but clearly aimed at a certain Usenet type of character (the kind who reports you to the sys admin etc.) The list does have some enjoyable moments. I recommend numbers 4, 8, 9, 12, 22...wow, 22! But I don't recommend using it as shorthand because it is clearly meant to be derogatory. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
It doesn't try to define what really happens, it doesn't assume that wave functions are 'real' or even that they evolve. All it says is that if you measure a system at time t, the probabilities of the different outcomes are the real part of etc.
The fact that states can be in various baroque non-local superpositions before the interaction doesn't change this. The probabilities will still be consistent and computable.
Migeru:
What none of them address is the (not quantum-mechanical but probabilistic) problem of actuality (which of the actual histories is realised), which is basically the (probabilistic, not quantum mechanical) problem of assigning a probability to a single event.
"It's random within probabilistic constraints" seems to be all that QM can tell you.
There may be a theory which defines the ontology in more detail. But QM doesn't seem to be it.
The only difference between an observer and a non-observer is that the observer is consciously aware of a measured value. But that doesn't define the value.
What's annoying about QM is that it tries to conflate different issues. There's a difference between the physical interaction needed to make a measurement and the mental process of experiencing the measurement. There's also non-locality, which supposedly makes everything very spooky and has somehow - for some reason which has never been properly explained, because it's not really needed - been linked to mental experience, even though it's completely distinct.
Consciousness Micro to macro amplification ('measurement') Non-locality etc 'It's all one' woo woo
are all different. I'll take the middle two. I won't accept the other two until someone does an experiment in which two observers measure two contradictory observables from the same quantum system at the same time.
Remember Bohr's "no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon".
That's almost makes sense, but doesn't, because in the limit it says that nothing in the universe exists unless it's observed. Which seems unlikely - otherwise you're back to solipsism again, with every possible wave function in the entire history of the universe converging on your viewpoint.
Regarding Bohr, isn't that very similar to what Kand said about noumenon and phenomenon? Aren't there serious epistemological issues at the core of all this?
ThatBritGuy:
"It's random within probabilistic constraints" seems to be all that QM can tell you. There may be a theory which defines the ontology in more detail. But QM doesn't seem to be it. The only difference between an observer and a non-observer is that the observer is consciously aware of a measured value. But that doesn't define the value.
sniff, sniff Chris, is that you cooking up another batch of your pudding somewhere? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
That depends what you expect physics to do. There's a difference between explaining reality, modelling reality, and defining reality.
I think realistically (sic) the best you can hope for is models of increasing sophistication and usefulness. Explaining reality is best left to theologians. (Not that they have a clue either, but it keeps them busy.)
No one should be trying to define reality, ever, but it's easy to fall into the trap of believing that a theory with predictive power is what's going on ontologically.
Too much physics is still cursed by Platonism. According to Penrose et el., models supposedly float around outside reality telling it what to do.
But there's a huge gap between using experimental recipes to predict what's going to happen next, and assuming there's a Central Recipe Database running things behind the scenes.
One is pattern recognition, the other is metaphysics. One assumes that reality works consistently and the consistency can be enumerated. The other makes unwarranted assumptions about the mechanisms which create that consistency.
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 12 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 19 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 16 comments
by gmoke - Feb 14 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 19 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 15 23 comments
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 282 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2312 comments
by Oui - Feb 2219 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2016 comments
by Oui - Feb 2021 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1914 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 1777 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments
by Oui - Feb 145 comments
by Oui - Feb 1245 comments
by Oui - Feb 775 comments
by Oui - Feb 668 comments