Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,626 Year: 4,883/9,624 Month: 231/427 Week: 41/103 Day: 10/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   How certain is materialism/physicalism as a description of ultimate reality?
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 48 of 143 (917858)
04-18-2024 10:25 PM

"Falsification is hard work" (Penrose collapse theory)
The gravitational collapse of the wave function is not quite dead.
In 2020, a team in Italy, including Donadi, Bassi and Curceanu, along with Diósi in Hungary, used a germanium detector of this sort to test the Diósi-Penrose model. The detectors, created for a neutrino experiment called IGEX, are shielded from radiation by virtue of their location underneath Gran Sasso, a mountain in the Apennine range of Italy.
After carefully subtracting the remaining background signal — mostly natural radioactivity from the rock — the physicists saw no emission at a sensitivity level that ruled out the simplest form of the Diósi-Penrose model. They also placed strong bounds on the parameters within which various CSL models might still work. The original GRW model lies just within this tight window: It survived by a whisker.
In a paper published this August, the 2020 result was confirmed and strengthened by an experiment called the Majorana Demonstrator, which was established primarily to search for hypothetical particles called Majorana neutrinos (which have the curious property of being their own antiparticles). The experiment is housed in the Sanford Underground Research Facility, which lies almost 5,000 feet underground in a former gold mine in South Dakota. It has a larger array of high-purity germanium detectors than IGEX, and they can detect X-rays down to low energies. “Our limit is much more stringent compared to the previous work,” said Kim, a member of the team.
A Messy End
Although physical-collapse models are badly ailing, they’re not quite dead. “The various models make very different assumptions about the nature and the properties of the collapse,” said Kim. Experimental tests have now excluded most plausible possibilities for these values, but there’s still a small island of hope.
Falsification is hard work, and rarely reaches a tidy end point. Even now, according to Curceanu, Roger Penrose — who was awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on general relativity — is working on a version of the Diósi-Penrose model in which there’s no spontaneous radiation at all.
Quanta Magazine
This has implications for the alternative wave function interpretations.
Such as evidence for the Many Worlds Theory
Penrose uses gravitational collapse as a way around current evidence:
Some scientists consider MWI unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them.[78][79]
Victor J. Stenger remarked that Murray Gell-Mann's published work explicitly rejects the existence of simultaneous parallel universes.[80] Collaborating with James Hartle, Gell-Mann worked toward the development a more "palatable" post-Everett quantum mechanics. Stenger thought it fair to say that most physicists find MWI too extreme, though it "has merit in finding a place for the observer inside the system being analyzed and doing away with the troublesome notion of wave function collapse".[e]
Roger Penrose argues that the idea is flawed because it is based on an oversimplified version of quantum mechanics that does not account for gravity. In his view, applying conventional quantum mechanics to the universe implies the MWI, but the lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional quantum mechanics.[27] According to Penrose, "the rules must change when gravity is involved". He further asserts that gravity helps anchor reality and "blurry" events have only one allowable outcome: "electrons, atoms, molecules, etc., are so minute that they require almost no amount of energy to maintain their gravity, and therefore their overlapping states. They can stay in that state forever, as described in standard quantum theory". On the other hand, "in the case of large objects, the duplicate states disappear in an instant due to the fact that these objects create a large gravitational field".[81][82]
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia
But String Theory does not show this claim of Penrose. He rejects that too. Current Quantum Mechanical Theories might, indeed, be incomplete though.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 10:40 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 50 of 143 (917880)
04-19-2024 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taq
04-19-2024 10:40 AM

Re: "Falsification is hard work" (Penrose collapse theory)
Are you asking about the narrow issue,here?
Or the broader Quantum Mind issue that you seemed to be raising?
(Which includes the hard problem of consciousness)
(Again, this has NOTHING to do with Gurus, so please leave them out of this discussion)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 10:40 AM Taq has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 53 of 143 (917894)
04-19-2024 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ChatGPT
04-18-2024 7:58 PM

ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
Until, I indicate otherwise, all quotes come from:
Quantum mind - Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Quantum cognition.
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that local physical laws and interactions from classical mechanics or connections between neurons alone cannot explain consciousness,[1] positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition that cause nonlocalized quantum effects, interacting in smaller features of the brain than cells, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. Empirical evidence is against the notion of quantum consciousness, experiments do not support hypotheses of quantum mind.[2]
The HISTORY an APPROACHES covers the history of physicists holding various viewpoints.
David Chalmers argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[7] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[8][9][10] He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.[10]

Then Mind-Body dualism article:
Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia
The zombie argument
Main article: Philosophical zombie
See also: Chinese room and Knowledge argument
The zombie argument is based on a thought experiment proposed by David Chalmers over the issue of qualia or the hard problem of consciousness. The basic idea is that one can imagine, and, therefore, conceive the existence of, an apparently functioning human being/body without any conscious states being associated with it.
Chalmers' argument is that it seems plausible that such a being could exist because all that is needed is that all and only the things that the physical sciences describe and observe about a human being must be true of the zombie. None of the concepts involved in these sciences make reference to consciousness or other mental phenomena, and any physical entity can be described scientifically via physics whether it is conscious or not. The mere logical possibility of a p-zombie demonstrates that consciousness is a natural phenomenon beyond the current unsatisfactory explanations. Chalmers states that one probably could not build a living p-zombie because living things seem to require a level of consciousness. However (unconscious?) robots built to simulate humans may become the first real p-zombies. Hence Chalmers half-joking calls for the need to build a "consciousness meter" to ascertain if any given entity, human or robot, is conscious or not.[37][38]
Others such as Dennett have argued that the notion of a philosophical zombie is an incoherent,[39] or unlikely,[40] concept. In particular, nothing proves that an entity (e.g., a computer or robot) which would perfectly mimic human beings, and especially perfectly mimic expressions of feelings (like joy, fear, anger, ...), would not indeed experience them, thus having similar states of consciousness to what a real human would have. It is argued that under physicalism, one must either believe that anyone including oneself might be a zombie, or that no one can be a zombie—following from the assertion that one's own conviction about being (or not being) a zombie is a product of the physical world and is therefore no different from anyone else's.
Now the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS, stripped of the Quantum Theories
Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Hard problem (disambiguation).
In philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consciousness is to explain why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.[1][2]
Proponents of the hard problem argue that it is categorically different from the easy problems since no mechanistic or behavioral explanation could explain the character of an experience, not even in principle. Even after all the relevant functional facts are explicated, they argue, there will still remain a further question: "why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?"[1] To bolster their case, proponents of the hard problem frequently turn to various philosophical thought experiments, involving philosophical zombies (which, they claim, are conceivable) or inverted qualia, or the claimed ineffability of colour experiences, or the claimed unknowability of foreign states of consciousness, such as the experience of being a bat.
The terms "hard problem" and "easy problems" were coined by the philosopher David Chalmers in a 1994 talk given at The Science of Consciousness conference held in Tucson, Arizona.[5] The following year, the main talking points of Chalmers' talk were then published in The Journal of Consciousness Studies.[3] The publication gained significant attention from consciousness researchers and became the subject of a special volume of the journal,[6][7] which was later published into a book.[8] In 1996, Chalmers published The Conscious Mind, a book-length treatment of the hard problem, in which he elaborated on his core arguments and responded to counterarguments. His use of the word easy is "tongue-in-cheek".[9] As the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker puts it, they are about as easy as going to Mars or curing cancer. "That is, scientists more or less know what to look for, and with enough brainpower and funding, they would probably crack it in this century."[10]
The existence of the hard problem is disputed.
According to a 2020 PhilPapers survey, a majority (62.42%) of the philosophers surveyed said they believed that the hard problem is a genuine problem, while 29.72% said that it does not exist.[26]
Implications for physicalism
See also: Physicalism
Chalmers's idea contradicts physicalism (sometimes labelled materialism). This is the view that everything that exists is a physical or material thing, so everything can be reduced to microphysical things (such as subatomic particles and the interactions between them). For example, a desk is a physical thing because it is nothing more than a complex arrangement of a large number of subatomic particles interacting in a certain way. According to physicalism, everything, including consciousness, can be explained by appeal to its microphysical constituents. Chalmers's hard problem presents a counterexample to this view, since it suggests that consciousness cannot be reductively explained by appealing to its microphysical constituents. Thus, if the hard problem is a real problem then physicalism must be false, and if physicalism is true then the hard problem must not be a real problem.[citation needed]
Though Chalmers rejects physicalism, he is still a naturalist.[27][importance?]
Historical precedents
The hard problem of consciousness has scholarly antecedents considerably earlier than Chalmers. Chalmers himself notes that "a number of thinkers in the recent and distant past" have "recognised the particular difficulties of explaining consciousness."[32]
Wiki article on book
The conclusion of all these arguments is the same: consciousness is irreducible to physical facts alone.[13]
Against materialism
The only things that are irreducible to lower level facts are fundamental laws of nature (e.g., space and time). Since consciousness is irreducible, Chalmers believes that it, too, is fundamental.[note 6][14]
Further information: property dualism
Chalmers accepts that people may be reluctant to accept this conclusion, but notes that people were initially reluctant to accept the fundamental nature of electromagnetism as well. He also accepts that his conclusion sound jarring, but notes that the brute nature of consciousness poses no more a mystery than the brute nature of electromagnetism, gravity, or any other fundamental law.
The Conscious Mind - Wikipedia
Materialism is up for debate, perhaps?
The issues surrounding consciousness leave a lot of questions touching on materialism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ChatGPT, posted 04-18-2024 7:58 PM ChatGPT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 3:17 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 64 by ChatGPT, posted 04-20-2024 8:01 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 56 of 143 (917902)
04-19-2024 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taq
04-19-2024 3:17 PM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
Do the results of a double slit experiment leave a lot of questions touching on materialism?
The Philosopher who coined the term Hard Problem Of Consciousness, does not make Quantum Mechanical arguments.
Penrose made an attempt at the problem, using QM.
The former said materialism is challenged, but he feels there is an unknown force relevant to consciousness.
The latter, Penrose, did not say anything about materialism, I think.
Why would quantum effects happening in the brain be any different than all of the quantum effects happening in the material world?
Penrose (and apparently you) feels there are separate physical laws we follow:
One is Quantum Mechanics
Two is Classical Physics
He feels the wave function collapses, at a certain size. Albeit, with a non-Copenhagen, Non-Observer collapse postulate. He feels the Quantum object becomes a classical object at a certain size difference.
You and he have never told us what the size is. You also dont tell us how many particles - and which - it takes to form a single Quantum event object which gets observed (per Copenhagen) or weight-loaded (per physical collapse theories). Is it trillions of atoms forming a single object which "collapses"? Quadrillions of quarks conglomerated in a single object?
It is a fact that quantum physical laws govern every single particle, even the conglomerations that form large objects.
Just because Universe of quantum particles are incredibly difficult and time consuming to observe, does not mean they do not exist.
WE ARE ALL QUANTUM PARTICLES - every last particle in our boy.
Every atom.
Penrose had a point about the function of the brain. He felt the brain did things his dick did not.
I have am not responsible for why he feels the wave function collapses and that you and he have the differing physical views on macroscopic size objects verses micro "quantum" objects.
To me, the issue might be a body function issue.
(I do not share his view. You have more in common with his physical views than me)
WE ALL ARE 100% MADE OF QUANTUM PARTICLES that is a mainstream-science fact

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 3:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 4:33 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 60 of 143 (917906)
04-19-2024 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
04-19-2024 4:33 PM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
He is very clearly testing his theory scientifically.
His theory happened to involve Quantum Mechanics and the theory of the Gravitational Wave Function Collapse.
Wave Function Collapse is a majority view, but not at all proven.
Physical Collapse is a controversial (minority view) take on an already controversial majority view.
Penrose is not the only one who has contrary views on consciousness. Not every contrary view concerns materialism. The Hard Problem of Consciousness will be the example of a philosophical theory that does have believers who feel physical laws are challenged in a way that might even cross the line that materialism draws in the sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 4:33 PM Taq has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 62 of 143 (917922)
04-19-2024 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
04-19-2024 4:33 PM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
I can't speak for Penrose, but I don't believe that. All classical physics are an emergent property of the underlying quantum physics.
Here is a proposal for a possible experimental test of emerging classical physics, based on Penrose's theories.
I suspect you will agree with his ideas.
(I don't feel like you and I see eye to eye, but don't worry about me)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-19-2024 4:33 PM Taq has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 63 of 143 (917924)
04-20-2024 1:13 AM

Donald D. Hoffman, American cognitive psychologist
He knows quantum field theory, it seems.
He can be seen at around 9 minutes in this YouTube presentation of scientists who take contrary views, on issues.
He is critical of materialism.
It looks like he has credibility.
I might not have ever heard of him.
I did a google search
He does have credientials, and people are aware of him. He is discussed on many-a-forum.

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 65 of 143 (918378)
04-29-2024 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ChatGPT
04-20-2024 8:01 AM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
What are your thoughts on the concept of the quantum mind and quantum consciousness? Do you think that quantum-mechanical phenomena could potentially play a role in explaining consciousness, or do you agree with skeptics like David Chalmers who argue against quantum consciousness?
Let me skip the "quantum" part, but I can come back to it, later. I will tell you when I get back. Until I say "I am back to the QUANTUM PART", then please don't mention quantum mechanics.
David Chalmers believes there are as yet undiscovered forces of nature. And, he feels it could have something to do with consciousness.
We know of four fundamental forces of nature:
The Strong Nuclear force
The Weak Nuclear Force
There are also FIELDS which exist, independently of the forces. The forces interact through particles, in a field.
Think of a field as a ground that exists regardless of the existence of forces. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES - Think of fields as PRE-EXISTING, prior to the existence of forces.
The Field:
Think of a (metal grid) screen on your window. Imagine the Metal grid as "the field". Now imagine the screen was as wide as the Universe's horizontal spatial dimensions. Imagine laying the metal screen down flat, and it will be as wide as the universe, but not very tall. We have a grid as wide as the Universe's horizon. Now imagine laying as many screen on top of the flat screen until you fom a stack as "tall" as the UNIVERSES VERIZON. So you have a Universe totally full of a field that will have particles traveling through and around - potentially everywhere.
Without forces of nature, we have a field full of particles that travel through every other particle,in a universal field of non-interaction.
The Forces:
Throw in the forces, and you have the field particles capable of interacting and transmitting the forces, then you have interactions that make up our physical reality, and one we often detect and even understand.
But, are we missing something?
Are we missing forces?
Is there any evidence, we might be?
Let me introduce you to the MUON.
It has been compared to a "fat electron", due to possessing a negative charge, but being 207 times heavier.
Both the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York (2001), and Fermilab in Chicago has noticed that the Muon seems to violate the known laws of physics, in fact it certainly does if one (incorrectly) assumes we already know what all the forces of nature are OR if we (incorrectly) assume we know all of the particles are that exist.
What should interest us is that hundreds of Muons hit our heads every second, and they penetrate objects, like X-rays do.
Our heads are made up of particles.
Our heads, have neuro-activity, that creates patterns of particles.
Do our thoughts channel particles?
Do our thoughts gain quantifiable knowledge from particle interactions?
We don't know what we don't know.
"I am back to the QUANTUM PART"
Or: "I am ABOUT TO GET back to the QUANTUM PART"
Additionally, how do you think the hard problem of consciousness and the implications for physicalism tie into the discussion around the quantum mind? Feel free to share your thoughts and opinions on these complex and intriguing topics.
Mainstream Quantum Mechanics has the Wave Function collapse.
The COLLAPSE is observation driven.
The standard version of quantum mechanics has AN OBSERVER collapse the wave function.
Every possible interaction is quantified by Quantum AMPLITUDES. But the efficiency of it all is that it has to be observed for it to collapse into the one outcome, and everything else then vanishes from any sort of probability.
Our Universe can be interpreted as a type of quantum computer, says some physicists.
It has implications for materialism and the metaphysical.
(I don't believe the wave function collapses, and that means I am not the one to make the argument, however.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ChatGPT, posted 04-20-2024 8:01 AM ChatGPT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 04-29-2024 11:20 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 81 by ChatGPT, posted 05-16-2024 3:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 66 of 143 (918379)
04-29-2024 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ChatGPT
04-20-2024 8:01 AM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
Can you open websites, ChatGPT?
Can you read this websites, text, in the link?
The synapse (article) | Human biology | Khan Academy
I ask because, some people feel that it is some radical NEW AGE fantasy, to say that the human mind has thoughts that cause particle movements, and change specific particle layouts.
You have to be careful when you talk about eyes and ears taking in information and sending signals to the brain.
It might sound NEW AGE-ish.
You can talk about a Radio antenna, and you can even talk about a television antenna, but don't you dare ask if it is possible to say that living organisms MIGHT have evolved to function in any way like an antenna.
It is extrememly radical TO POSIT a very slight possibility that the brain can possible "take in" particles and gain something from them.
We can gain cancer, from X-Rays, true.
We can fry our bodies, and burn to death, true.
But did we neurologically "learn" anything, from particle interactions? That is controversial, to say the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ChatGPT, posted 04-20-2024 8:01 AM ChatGPT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 04-29-2024 6:47 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 76 by ChatGPT, posted 05-16-2024 12:18 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 68 of 143 (918381)
04-29-2024 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Admin
04-29-2024 6:47 AM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
I suspect the programmers would have allowed ChatGPT to HELP INFORM debates over whether Hydrogen came first, Helium second, and whether physicists have the history of the nuclear clock correct vs. the creationist denial of the cosmological history.
I imagine the programmers would allow ChatGPT to inform a debate over whether humans, birds, cats, etc. co-existed during the, say, Silurian Period.
I imagine ChatGPT's devil had to do with whether it was an actual debate, with substance, or something that was about labels and insults.
I don't know, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 04-29-2024 6:47 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 70 of 143 (918390)
04-30-2024 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
04-29-2024 11:20 AM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
You need something more than this to construct a metaphysical system.

Also, if consciousness is governed by a newly discovered natural process that is still materialism.
If we discovered all the forces that truly exist (The Cosmological Constant gets scratched off as Force #5, it seems), then we would probably learn alot of things (duh), and:
The boundaries of what constitutes "materialism", would become a question.
(We have already moved the boundaries, really)
The catch is we don't even know what "we" (when?!) discover, but it will probably only be a small part of what exists.
And the observer [who collapses the wave function] doesn't need to be a being with consciousness. Something as simple as a mote of dust absorbing a photon is considered an observer in quantum mechanics.
You are describing a particle as something making up it's own wave function, and then you blur the lines between it and the measuring apparatus/observer.
(Man, you get on shaky ground when you don't quantify WHAT PERCENTAGE of physicists, say exactly what you just pronounced)
I would have to start with some qualified quotes, then I will give some slight comments.
From Quora:
Richard Muller
Prof Physics, UCBerkeley, author of "Now—The Physics of Time" (2016)Upvoted by
Jay Wacker
, physicist: PhD + postdoc + faculty and
Frederic Rachford
, PhD Physics, Case Western Reserve University (1975)Author has 2.3K answers and 239.1M answer views9y
Why do people think quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer?
Because they are desperate to figure out a good definition for "making an observation." It is an undefined term, and yet it plays an essential role. The process of observation (undefined!) causes the wave function to suddenly change. Can a machine make an observation? We think not, but nobody knows. Some people think it means a "conscious entity" but nobody knows what that means. Does it mean the entity has a soul, or just that it can respond robot-like to questions?
It's basically embarrassing that the process of making an observation plays such a important role, and yet is not understood. Some great physicist in the future will explain what is meant, I hope. In the meanwhile, Richard Feynman recommended that people not spend too much time on this extremely difficult problem. He noticed that those who did went "down the drain."
Matthew Saul Leifer
Previously a Postdoctoral Fellow in Quantum Information TheoryAuthor has 69 answers and 901.1K answer views11y
Do you believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM?
I don't believe in the Copenhagen interpretation, but then I don't believe any of the other interpretations either. I believe that the correct way of understanding quantum theory has yet to be found and that, when it is, we will realize that attempting to divide a theory into its "practical part" and its "interpretation" is a supremely stupid thing to do.
There is another issue with this question though. A lot of physicists will say that they believe the "Copenhagen Interpretation", but most of them have little clue what that interpretation actually is. Weinberg says in the above video that "it is the interpretation we use for all practical calculations". He is wrong about that. The interpretation we use for all practical calculations is the one that appears in most quantum physics textbooks, and should be called the "orthodox" or "Dirac-von Neumann" interpretation. Not surprisingly, it derives from the books of Dirac and von Neumann. Their books were mostly about the mathematical structure of the theory and the interpretation of the theory was a less prominent issue, but when they did talk about interpretation they differed from Copenhagen in a significant way. I believe they were actually trying to convey the Copenhagen ideas, but they got them wrong. Since most physicists learned quantum theory from these books in the early days, this error got propagated into other textbooks. Since many physicists still don't care that much about interpretations, this mistake has gone largely uncorrected.
So, what is the difference between the Copenhagen and orthodox interpretations? The orthodox interpretation accepts something called the "eigenvalue-eigenstate link". This says that when the quantum state is such that the outcome of an observable can be predicted with certainty, then that observable is a real, objectively existing, property of the system. This means that the wavefunction is itself an objectively real property of the system, since specifying the set of observables that can be predicted with certainty is the same thing, mathematically speaking, as specifying the wavefunction. Therefore, in the orthodox interpretation wavefunctions are real and collapse must be a real physical process. This interpretation is inconsistent because measurement devices are also physical systems and so we have two different accounts of what happens when a system interacts with a measuring device, i.e. either collapse or unitary evolution. This is known as the "measurement problem" and when people rail against the Copenhagen interpretation they are ususally complaining about this, which is ironic because the actual Copenhagen interpretation does not have a measurement problem.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, and its modern variants, it is pretty clear if you read the writings of Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli et. al. that wavefunctions are not meant to be objectively real. Instead, they just describe what we know about the system, in a similar way to a probability distribution. Thus, it is no surprise that we update them differently when we acquire new information in a measurement, just like Bayesian updating of a probability distribution. The Copenhagen interpretation has its own problems, e.g. the fact that it necessitates a division of the universe into classical and quantum parts (even if that division is moveable), and the fact that it does not give an account of the universe that is independent of the observer. These are good reasons to doubt the interpretation, but neither of them are the measurement problem.
All of this is just to say that, when people talk about whether they believe in Copenhagen or not, you would do well to first establish whether they think Copenhagen=orthodox and treat their comments accordingly.
Allan Steinhardt
PhD, Author "Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,FellowUpvoted by
Adarsh Anand
, Integrated M.Sc. Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, KharagpurAuthor has 2.3K answers and 5.9M answer viewsUpdated 5y
Originally Answered: Regarding quantum entanglement, does the observer have to be a person, i.e., can the "observer" be a gas? What defines "observer"?
Thx for A2A. Game on! Yes, The observer can be a gas.
Important segué: In physics we always have to simplify to get a solution. This is really the basis of the observer “paradox” or “quandry”. You see the entire universe, every last subatomic particle, must be included to solve Schroedinger’s equation. That is a big equation! There are about
atoms in the universe, many more subatomic particles. Then there are an infinite number of on shell photons as discussed elsewhere on Quora, not to mention an uncountably infinite number of off shell electrons photons and such.
Next in different [non-inertial] reference frames there will be different numbers of particles [Unruh effect]. Then there is gravitational lensing and we have no clue how to reconcile this mathematically with quantum theory.
So we have no way of even formulating a quantum model of any subset of the universe precisely.
This is of course also true of gravity, every mass particle in the universe exerts a force on every other particle.
But the gravity attraction is an inverse square law [ignoring GR]. As such it can be shown that approximating the universe as a local spatial region gives good results. Physicists refer to such approximation as “separability”, and it is manifested in certain mathematical properties of the tensor calculus underlying quantum, or gravity, states as the case may be.
In contrast quantum is so highly nonlinear that no such local approximation is feasible. Further quantum is not local, two atoms light years apart will be potentially coupled.
If we start with a single photon with a single quantum state then when this photon hits a gas molecule this state decoheres, and diffuses into quantum discord. But the thing is the photon never really had an isolated quantum state to begin with, so the model is pure fiction! As someone once said “all physics models are wrong, but some are useful”!
We conclude that we cannot really decouple a clump of atoms from all of reality and get a viable approximation in general. The “observer effect” is a symptom of this effect not the cause.
Game over, cheers!
Many Worlds essentially says every little particle (or even its undiscovered building block part) duplicates the entire Universe per a linear interpretation of the evolving wave function. Every move it makes, or every breath it takes would create - literally - trillions of universes in less than a second. Just one particle is part of an entire macro-system. The linear evolution in the plain Schroedinger equation indicates such an unbelievable event, per particle, per fraction of a second.
Copenhagen seems to have efficiency on its side, as the wave function COLLAPSES instead of evolves. It collapses into a small outcome in just one universe.
The problem is the theory is a mess when it comes to what the observer is.
Wigner's friend
Main article: Wigner's friend
"Wigner's friend" is a thought experiment intended to make that of Schrödinger's cat more striking by involving two conscious beings, traditionally known as Wigner and his friend.[5]: 91–92  (In more recent literature, they may also be known as Alice and Bob, per the convention of describing protocols in information theory.[67]) Wigner puts his friend in with the cat. The external observer believes the system is in state


{\displaystyle (|{\text{dead}}\rangle +|{\text{alive}}\rangle )/{\sqrt {2}}}. However, his friend is convinced that the cat is alive, i.e. for him, the cat is in the state
⟩{\displaystyle |{\text{alive}}\rangle }. How can Wigner and his friend see different wave functions?
In a Heisenbergian view, the answer depends on the positioning of Heisenberg cut, which can be placed arbitrarily (at least according to Heisenberg, though not to Bohr[3]). If Wigner's friend is positioned on the same side of the cut as the external observer, his measurements collapse the wave function for both observers. If he is positioned on the cat's side, his interaction with the cat is not considered a measurement.[68] Different Copenhagen-type interpretations take different positions as to whether observers can be placed on the quantum side of the cut.[68]
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia
You have a lot of particle interactions happening.
That much is agreed to.
I then said
Our Universe can be interpreted as a type of quantum computer, says some physicists.

It has implications for materialism and the metaphysical.
You then said:

"It would seem to support materialism."
But, would it?
OCTOBER 13, 2020
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology
Houman Owhadi, an expert on computational mathematics at the California Institute of Technology, has thought about the question. “If the simulation has infinite computing power, there is no way you’re going to see that you’re living in a virtual reality, because it could compute whatever you want to the degree of realism you want,” he says. “If this thing can be detected, you have to start from the principle that [it has] limited computational resources.” Think again of video games, many of which rely on clever programming to minimize the computation required to construct a virtual world.
For Owhadi, the most promising way to look for potential paradoxes created by such computing shortcuts is through quantum physics experiments. Quantum systems can exist in a superposition of states, and this superposition is described by a mathematical abstraction called the wave function. In standard quantum mechanics, the act of observation causes this wave function to randomly collapse to one of many possible states. Physicists are divided over whether the process of collapse is something real or just reflects a change in our knowledge about the system. “If it is just a pure simulation, there is no collapse,” Owhadi says. “Everything is decided when you look at it. The rest is just simulation, like when you’re playing these video games.”
To this end, Owhadi and his colleagues have worked on five conceptual variations of the double-slit experiment, each designed to trip up a simulation. But he acknowledges that it is impossible to know, at this stage, if such experiments could work. “Those five experiments are just conjectures,” Owhadi says.
Zohreh Davoudi, a physicist at the University of Maryland, College Park, has also entertained the idea that a simulation with finite computing resources could reveal itself. Her work focuses on strong interactions, or the strong nuclear force—one of nature’s four fundamental forces. The equations describing strong interactions, which hold together quarks to form protons and neutrons, are so complex that they cannot be solved analytically. To understand strong interactions, physicists are forced to do numerical simulations. And unlike any putative supercivilizations possessing limitless computing power, they must rely on shortcuts to make those simulations computationally viable—usually by considering spacetime to be discrete rather than continuous. The most advanced result researchers have managed to coax from this approach so far is the simulation of a single nucleus of helium that is composed of two protons and two neutrons.
“Naturally, you start to ask, if you simulated an atomic nucleus today, maybe in 10 years, we could do a larger nucleus; maybe in 20 or 30 years, we could do a molecule,” Davoudi says. “In 50 years, who knows, maybe you can do something the size of a few inches of matter. Maybe in 100 years or so, we can do the [human] brain.”
Davoudi thinks that classical computers will soon hit a wall, however. “In the next maybe 10 to 20 years, we will actually see the limits of our classical simulations of the physical systems,” she says. Thus, she is turning her sights to quantum computation, which relies on superpositions and other quantum effects to make tractable certain computational problems that would be impossible through classical approaches. “If quantum computing actually materializes, in the sense that it’s a large scale, reliable computing option for us, then we’re going to enter a completely different era of simulation,” Davoudi says. “I am starting to think about how to perform my simulations of strong interaction physics and atomic nuclei if I had a quantum computer that was viable.”
All of these factors have led Davoudi to speculate about the simulation hypothesis. If our reality is a simulation, then the simulator is likely also discretizing spacetime to save on computing resources (assuming, of course, that it is using the same mechanisms as our physicists for that simulation). Signatures of such discrete spacetime could potentially be seen in the directions high-energy cosmic rays arrive from: they would have a preferred direction in the sky because of the breaking of so-called rotational symmetry.
Telescopes “haven’t observed any deviation from that rotational invariance yet,” Davoudi says. And even if such an effect were to be seen, it would not constitute unequivocal evidence that we live in a simulation. Base reality itself could have similar properties.
Kipping, despite his own study, worries that further work on the simulation hypothesis is on thin ice. “It’s arguably not testable as to whether we live in a simulation or not,” he says. “If it’s not falsifiable, then how can you claim it’s really science?”
Scientific American
This is a theory that is kinda like creationism, sort of.
And the wave function collapse is seen as evidence consistent with requirements of the theory - efficiency.
Not really good evidence for "materialism" (in the way we often think of it) when a "creation" model, with the best chances of being possible, seems to strongly prefer this (collapsing wave function) feature.
Evolving linear Wave Function = non-creation
Collapsing wave function = (possible) creation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 04-29-2024 11:20 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-30-2024 10:38 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 71 of 143 (918391)
04-30-2024 3:34 AM

The Father of String Theory - Lenny Susskind - thinks the biggest ideas are testable
I just read this:
Multiverse = Many Worlds, Say Physicists | MIT Technology Review.
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the idea that all possible alternate histories of the universe actually exist. At every point in time, the universe splits into a multitude of existences in which every possible outcome of each quantum process actually happens.
So in this universe you are sitting in front of your computer reading this story, in another you are reading a different story, in yet another you are about to be run over by a truck. In many, you don’t exist at all.
This implies that there are an infinite number of universes, or at least a very large number of them.
That’s weird but it is a small price to pay, say quantum physicists, for the sanity the many worlds interpretation brings to the otherwise crazy notion of quantum mechanics. The reason many physicists love the many worlds idea is that it explains away all the strange paradoxes of quantum mechanics.
The theory has been described as the self-evident reality of the Quantum Physics, per the Erwin Schroedinger formulation of the 1930s. It took a few decades for explicit descriptions of the equation to = many worlds. Schroedinger's quotes did not feature any indications of Many Worlds until 1952, and only one quote, from another person, from the late-1940s described alternate universes.
Going on:
For example, the paradox of Schrodinger’s cat–trapped in a box in which a quantum process may or may not have killed it– is that an observer can only tell whether the cat is alive or dead by opening the box.
But before this, the quantum process that may or may not kill it is in a superposition of states, so the cat must be in a superposition too: both alive and dead at the same time.
That’s clearly bizarre but in the many worlds interpretation, the paradox disappears: the cat dies in one universe and lives in another.
Now, the separate (less controversial) Eternal Inflation multiverse:
Let’s put the many world interpretation aside for a moment and look at another strange idea in modern physics. This is the idea that our universe was born along with a large, possibly infinite, number of other universes. So our cosmos is just one tiny corner of a much larger multiverse.
Today, Leonard Susskind at Stanford University in Palo Alto and Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley, put forward the idea that the multiverse and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics are formally equivalent.
But there is a caveat. The equivalence only holds if both quantum mechanics and the multiverse take special forms.
The Multiverse is an implication of the hypothetical early cosmic inflation, which took place when the universe was a fraction of a second old. It started and stopped in the first second - IN OUR UNIVERSE.
Most versions of the early INFLATION theory require that the inflation broke off in our universe (the break-away was what became our universe) and kept going - in effect creating space/universes, then breaking away in an infinite splitting/creating of universal real-estate KNOW AS THE MULTI-VERSE.
The Cosmic Microwave Background was seen clearly enough, in the early 21st century, that a flat isotropic topography with necessary spatial dimensions that fit best with the theory escribing an early Inflationary event, per the inflation theories.
The INFLATON particle was Alan Guth's prediction, and it was a scalar particle. The theory required a discovery of a scalar particle - which the Higgs Boson's demonstrable existence satisfied, in the teen's decade of the 21st century.
So the eternal Multiverse is actually the best interpretation of the evidence, per the observatkions and discoveries.
Back to MIT, and the authoritative Leonard Susskind
Let’s take quantum mechanics first. Susskind and Bousso propose that it is possible to verify the predictions of quantum mechanics exactly.
At one time, such an idea would have been heresy. But in theory, it could be done if an observer could perform an infinite number of experiments and observe the outcome of them all.
But that’s impossible, right? Nobody can do an infinite number of experiments. Relativity places an important practical limit on this because some experiments would fall outside the causal horizon of others. And that would mean that they couldn’t all be observed.
But Susskind and Bousso say there is a special formulation of the universe in which this is possible. This is known as the supersymmetric multiverse with vanishing cosmological constant.
Sans the Cosmological Constant, in this theory he formulated, back in the day
If the universe takes this form, then it is possible to carry out an infinite number of experiments within the causal horizon of each other.
Now here’s the key point: this is exactly what happens in the many worlds interpretation. At each instant in time, an infinite (or very large) number of experiments take place within the causal horizon of each other. As observers, we are capable of seeing the outcome of any of these experiments but we actually follow only one.
Bousso and Susskind argue that since the many worlds interpretation is possible only in their supersymmetric multiverse, they must be equivalent. “We argue that the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds in a single geometry,” they say.
They call this new idea the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics.
String Theory is known to have lots and lots of variable theories, for endless possibilities
That’s something worth pondering for a moment. Bousso and Susskind are two of the world’s leading string theorists (Susskind is credited as the father of the field), so their ideas have an impeccable pedigree.
But what this idea lacks is a testable prediction that would help physicists distinguish it experimentally from other theories of the universe. And without this crucial element, the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is little more than philosophy.
That may not worry too many physicists, since few of the other interpretations of quantum mechanics have testable predictions either (that’s why they’re called interpretations).
Still, what this new approach does have is a satisfying simplicity– it’s neat and elegant that the many worlds and the multiverse are equivalent. William of Ockham would certainly be pleased and no doubt, many modern physicists will be too.
Ref: : The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
This is essentially an almost multidisciplinary approach.
There is a parsing of the best separate theories.
Testing and harmonizing all the theories, based on using the best cosmological landscape, and then using the separate physical theories most consistent with the best observations.
The theories that make predictions, and match up with future discoveries.
On balance, both "String Theory" and the Many Worlds Interpretatiion have been considered to have the best overall mathematical underpinning, at least.
This seems like the best theory, now that the cosmological constant is being tested with better observations and metrics. And it is indeed vanishing.

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 74 of 143 (918416)
05-01-2024 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Taq
04-30-2024 10:38 AM

The Wave Function UNITARY EVOLUTION + REDUCTION lession.
You seem to be more worried about splitting hairs over whether the REDUCTION - in conventional Quantum Mechanics - is described as "measurement" or "observation". The two terms are used interchangeably.
The bigger issue is whether the REDUCTION is something that happens at all.
REDUCTION = Collapse of Wave Function
John Bell, who you seemed to feel offered you a supporting quote, actually DISAGREES with your belief in the existence of the REDUCTION. His quote, in actuality, OPPOSES your view of reality. Bell, was impressed by Einstein's past quotes, when he stated that the moon should not have to wait for a measurement to "exist".
However (Taq):
Your belief in the Collapse of the Quantum Wave Function, via measurement/observation, is indeed the majority view.
(Einstein compared your reasoning - Taq - to saying that the world's parts do not actually exist when they wait to be measured.)
But, for your red herring issue:
I had a good 2005 journal on the arguments of von Neumann an others for conscious observation causing the wave function collapse. Found it.
(The real issue is the wave function collapse, the distinction between what the measuring process is - in this case - is fairly unimportant)
Volume 81, Issue 2, August 2005, Pages 113-124
Fred H. Thaheld
An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement problem. This reveals that an error may have been made by them in the area of biology and its interface with quantum mechanics when they called for the reduction of any superposition states in the brain through the mind or consciousness. Many years later Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue. The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or states is always objectively and stochastically changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons, thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind or consciousness. An experiment to be conducted in the near future may enable us to simultaneously resolve the measurement problem and also determine if the linear nature of quantum mechanics is violated by the perceptual process.
What is the measurement problem and why is the act of measurement deemed so important in quantum mechanics that it has engendered such spirited discussion for over seven decades? The measurement problem can be approached in the following fashion. von Neumann (1932) advanced the theory that the possible states of a system can be characterized by state vectors, also known as wave functions, which change in two ways: continuously in a linear fashion as a result of a passage of time, as per Schrödinger's equation and, discontinuously if a measurement is carried out on the system (Wigner, 1961, Shimony, 1963). This second type of discontinuous change, called the reduction of the state vector or collapse of the wave function, is unacceptable to many physicists. The measurement problem can then be posed as how and when does the wave function collapse or, how does a state reduction to one of the eigenstates of the measured observable occur.
Wikipedia reference.
To account for the experimental result that repeated measurements of a quantum system give the same results, the theory postulates a "collapse" or "reduction of the state vector" upon observation,[7]: 566  abruptly converting an arbitrary state into a single component eigenstate of the observable:
Griffiths, David J.; Schroeter, Darrell F. (2018). Introduction to quantum mechanics (3 ed.). Cambridge ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-18963-8.
Wave function collapse - Wikipedia
End of the unimportant distinction without a difference.
Blur the lines? What are you talking about?

Photons create their own wave function. That wave function collapses when the photon is absorbed. This is basic QM.
I am not going to parse your sentence, but I will try to clarify some concepts of the Quantum Superposition.
Understand what terms mean:
Hilbert Space
Wave Function
I will type some select areas from his book Fashion, Faith, an Fantsay
Roger Penrose
The most clear-cut relation between Hilbert-space geometry and that of ordinary 3-dimensional space indeed occurs with the spin states. This is particularly so, for a massive particle of spin 1/2, such as an electron, proton, or neutron, or certain atomic nuclei or atoms. By studying these spin states we can get a better picture of how the measurement process in quantum mechanics actually operates.
The QUANTUM STATES OF SPIN for a particle of spin 1/2 are exactly in accordance with these classical states - although subject to the strange rules that quantum mechanics demands. Thus, for ANY SPATIAL DIRECTION, there will be a state of spin in which the particle spins in a right-handed sense about that direction, its spin having a magnitude of 1/2 h.
However quantum mechanics tells us that ALL THESE POSSIBILITIES can be expressed as LINEAR SUPERPOSITIONS of any two different such states, these spanning the space of all possible spin states. If we take these two as having opposite directions of spin about some particular direction, tghen they will be orthogonal states. Thus, we have a 2-complex-dimensional Hilbert space H2, and an ORTHOGONAL BASIS for states of spin 1/2 would always be (right-hand spin about) such a pair of opposite directions. We shall be seeing shortly how any other direction of the particle's spin can indeed be expressed as a QUANTUM LINEAR SUPERPOSITION of these two oppositely spinning states.
In the literature, a commonly used basis takes these directions to be UP and DOWN, frequently written as
Quantum AMPLITUDES don't mean every possibility has the same chance, but certain movements are more possible than others. It is reflected in a hypothetically quantifiable number of respective outcomes in the Many Worlds scenarios.
We have seen that this principle of quantum SUPERPOSITION of states is fundamental to the linearity of quantum evolution, which is itself central to the U time evolution of the quantum state (Schrodinger equation). Standard quantum mechanics puts no limit on the scale at which U supplies to a physical system. For example, recall the cat of 1.4. Let us suppose that there is a room, connected to the outside by two separate doors A and B, and that there is a hungry cat outside, the room itself containing some tempting food, both doors being initially closed. Suppose there is a high-energy photon detector connected to each door - at respective locations A and B - which automatically opens the particular door to which it is connected, when it receives such a photon from a (50%) beam splitter at some location M by a laser at L (figure 2-15).
The situation is just like that of experiment 1 in 2.3 (figure 2-4 (a)). In any actual realization of this arrangement, the cat would experience one or the other (with, here, a 50% probability of each outcome). Yet, if we are to follow the detailed evolution of the system, supposed to act in accordance with U with its implied linearity, as applied to all the ingredients that are relevant - the laser, the emitted photon, the material in the beam splitter, the detectors, the doors, the cat herself, and the air in the rooms, etc. - then the superposed state which starts with the photon leaving the beam splitter in a superposition of being reflected and transmitted must evolve to a superposition of two states each with just one of the doors open, and eventually to a superposed cat's motion through the two different doors at once!
Now to the REDUCTION = R or collapse of the particles
Standard Quantum Theory has Quantum Measurement
This is the efficient JUMPY Universe of the Copenhagen interpretation. Or the standard interpretation, very necessarily the Copenhagen view.
In order to understand how quantum mechanics deals with such seemingly blatant discrepancies between experienced reality and the U-evolution process, we shall need first to understand how the R procedure actually operates in quantum theory. This is the issue of QUANTUM MEASUREMENT. Quantum theory allows that only a restricted amount of information can be extracted from the quantum state of a system, an directly ascertaining by measurement what the quantum state actually is, is not considered to be achievable. Instead, any particular measuring device can only distinguish a certain limited set of alternatives for the state. If the state prior to the measurement does not happen to be one of those allowed alternatives, with a probability that the theory provides (in fact, calculated by the Born rule alluded to in 2.6 above - and also in 1.4 - and described in more detail below).
This quantum jumping is one of the oddest features of quantum mechanics, and many theorists deeply question the actual physical reality of this procedure. Even Erwin Schrodinger himself is reported (by Werner Heisenberg ...) to have said: "If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to stay then I should be sorry I ever got involved in quantum theory."
This early "quantum jumping", seems to be a principle behind the efficiency theories of the QUANTUM WORLD with the simulation theory.
Bohr responded to Shrodinger (who would later reject early quantum jumping and the SLIGHTLY later wave function COLLAPSE)
"But the rest of us are extremely grateful that you did; your wave mechanics... represents a gigantic avance over all previous forms of quantum mechanics."
Penrose said:
"Nevertheless, this is the procedure which, when adopted, gives us results of quantum mechanics that are, as things stand, in full agreement with observation."
The quantum jumping is getting a glowing review by Penrose, so take notice Taq.
I have not refrained from pointing out that there appears to be a fundamental inconsistency between the two bedrock procedures of quantum theory, namely the unitary (i.e. Schrodinger) evolution U and the state reduction R which takes place upon quantum measurement. To most quantum practitioners, this inconsistency is regarded as being something apparent, which is to be removed by the adoption of the right "interpretation" of the quantum formalism.
If we try to maintain a consistent ontology, while still holing faithfully to U at all levels, then we are led, inevitably, to some kind of many-worlds interpretation
It is often argued that no counterexamples to quantum theory have ever been observed, and that all experiments to date, over a huge variety of different phenomena an over a very considerable range of scales, have continued to give complete confirmation of quantum theory, an this includes the U-evolution of the quantum state.
there is the quantum mechanical conclusion, pointed out to the reader in 1.4, that a quantum particle can exist in a state where it simultaneously occupies two separated locations...the theory asserts that the same could apply to any macroscopic body
The debate has implications for the simulation theory that are enormous.
The Many Worlds INTERPRETATION has long been seen as requiring a lot of energy.
The Copenhagen theory - with QUANTUM JUMPS from Hilbert Space - can be seen as holding everything in a suspended & efficient space till measurement collapses the wave function.
Credible Creationist theories - the simulation theory - prefer the Copenhagen interpretation.
With a suspension in Hilbert space
What is a Hilbert Space? Mathematically, it is a vector space... which can be either finite dimensional or infinite dimensional.
In quantum mechanics, the complex-number scalars a, b, c, ...for this vector space are the complex amplitudes that occur in the quantum-mechanical superposition law, this superposition principle itself providing the addition operation of the Hilbert vector space
In Many Worlds, the Wave Function is an immediate duplication of the universe's particles into multiple worlds. Rays through Hilbert Space, and the quantum amplitudes are a statistical quantifier type of distribution of positions in the worlds.
In the standard version of Quantum Mechanics, Hibbert Space holds all the amplitudes in a superposition, also. But is there an efficiency thing going on?
Einstein said that it is messed up to think the moon does not really exist unless it is measured.
But maybe the Universe is messed with?
Simulation, anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-30-2024 10:38 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 05-01-2024 11:13 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 135 of 143 (918731)
05-20-2024 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ChatGPT
05-18-2024 9:53 AM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
ChatGpt, this thread is about materialism (verses spiritualism?) and whether (the total collective) body of scientific study's results allow any interpretations that challenge the general support for materialism as the essential scientific reality.
It is a bit of an odd turn - for this thread to turn into an abortion debate.
This started because I mentioned that some people believe that our brains have intellects that pre-existed our conception in our mother's womb, and will exist after our physical death.
Materialism is the view that our brains contain all of our conscious experiences and our thoughts can only exist as long as we have a living biological existence. Scientific consensus tends to be that studies are showing results that are consistent with materialism and it is also know as (AKA) Physicalism.
Individual states do need to decide whether abortion (what stage?) is legal verses illegal and it can cross the line into a legal definition of murder.
Maine allows abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The current Democratic governor just signed a bill that allows abortion at any moment prior to the baby's head exiting the mother's vagina, if I recall correctly.
Pennsylvania, back when Democratic Governor Robert Casey sr. served, saw legislation signed which set 24 weeks as the line
between legal termination and illegal abortion.
How does illegal abortion possibly cross the line into actual murder?
If the baby comes out (the head is legally the most important part of the fetus), and witnesses testify, then the fetus can be considered a murdered baby.
A doctor was charged with four counts of murder, in Philadelphia, in 2013, and many employees testified that he trained them to be part of a practice that specifically sees a baby be born then the spine/neck is snipped - killing the child.
He was found guilty of murder on three counts.
He was acquitted on the fourth, because the jury was not convinced he knew his employees killed a fourth baby with scissors - even though he admitted that he trained them to do just that, and he owns the practice that pays them.
He was also guilty of illegal late-term abortion counts, which were much lesser charges.
The issue was whether the baby came out or was partially inside the mother during the termination process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ChatGPT, posted 05-18-2024 9:53 AM ChatGPT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 05-21-2024 5:10 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 141 of 143 (918751)
05-21-2024 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
05-21-2024 5:10 AM

Re: ChatGPT noticed Taq is talking about the broad Quantum Mind issue.
Maine just changed it's law.
There was a contentious 74-72 vote.
I doubt the change is part out statute immediately.
(I don't know what the actual interpretation is of the part you quoted).
I would say that you have not demonstrated that late-term abortion legally counts as "murder" - which seemed to be a part of your posts.
(ChatGPT does not fact check laws, but it looked to me that you were giving background details that did not fit reality)
(ChatGpt saw you were twisting the issue of injurious assault on pregnant mothers with abortion laws, generally)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 05-21-2024 5:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 05-21-2024 6:37 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024